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 houses down from the project it is really hard to describe what it looks like i wish you could come out and look at it this structure is huge huge compared to everything else

around it just come and look at it that will ruin the whole neighborhood yes, thank you and your speaker card if you could hand it in okay. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm not not really here to talk to you guys but since this project is already horde and you are going to interfere with this this appeal will to the change our minds i'm here to talk to you guys the appellants earlier. >> excuse me. that's not the appropriate use of the time if you have something to speak to the commission you can do that but if you want to - >> the same speech. >> you want to identify yours.

>> i'm sonya a group of renter that is really feeling terrified we're feeling terrified and those kinds of things this is one how is it seems like it didn't matter when we have a need that's exactly when just one house matters a lot when we- i'm not mission people there are very terrified of new development they think they're to get pushed out that seems more fair it has a i have an emotional reaction when i see neighbors claj that the new house is not going to look nice i feel like this is insult to all of us who are actually afraid of being displaced and we really need to live in a city

that is easy to build if reliable and friendly to new building whether one small you know development one house whether it is thirty unit or 4 unit somewhere else we're not going to get to our 5 thousand unit a year if not easy to build thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, i'm daniel a local 38 union plumber a member of sf bar the american federation let the man build his house let him build. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. i'm living on ashbury the property opposite

the proposed development has been appointment this is a broad based local appeal and i'd like to also refer to what was said one of the people who supported this moved out and didn't want to put up with the consequences of this development it notice a overre it is a nice architecturally home on the corner of the sf street we feel is being defaced and stick out like a sore thump if ever the wishes of one person over the wishes of the community that is one of the occasions and in light of this appeal i hope you'll reconsider that appeal that effects a large number of residents thank you.

>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners i'm you howard i'm in support of project being built you've horde it if you compare the appellants property on clayton street it's a 3 thousand 2 hundred plus square feet for records the family is 3 thousand plus significantly smaller in photo copy and the garage the appellant owns next door it is in an rh1 zoning the appellant added a third occupant it says 1024 a and ton 26 clayton he lives in a rh2 zone cereal not in compliance? the third time about a view from the roof deck what someone's home looks like

is their business the impartial next door is deeper and has a roofer deeper than the photo copy of our how is it is hard to say your home is a monster i ask you to allow the gentleman to build his home. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> ofld ofld please. i am micro live on ashburyburg street this should produce a variance because the developer purchased this small lot intoirl

unstubble u suitable for the development the developers is addressing a reciprocation inspirational of his own making my neighbor will suffer a huge loss of light and air by the height of the proposed building it will stick out beyond the homeland on downey my neighbors are bathrooms facing the east will see is giant building on downey street that effects their privacy and that will be reduced the entire south facing on 1051 will be covered and their gardens will loss the sunlight the diagram you basically see the outline of the 1051 and the proposed structure and as you can see the proposed structure

greatly overshadows the property and effects not only that property with the light and air from the additional between clayton and downey i ask the board grant the reduction thank you you. > thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening ladies and gentlemen my name is johnny i had previously written a letter to the commissioners i think you may have that my name may not be familiar at any rate the reason i'm here is that i am is also opted to the scale of this building this lot was very obviously designed to be left open tiny tiny which is why

the photo copy is seven hundred square feet however if that were going to be just a two or three story home like all the rest of the homes in that area it would then noted a similar roofline as designed not do that at all it will not only be filling up most of the lot and indeed as i pointed out in my letter deprive the homes that face and built on clayton street deprive those homes of the morning light but it will also take away a lot of the view from those of us that live option those building and lot so as i

do i live on ashbury benchmarking in a building that has 9 apartment we will be deprived of our view and the rooflines where not meet suddenly a large house that is out of scale and that will tower above the other kinds of houses there and it will therefore not fit in and i know it will as you saw mr. resigns petition and all the signatures it is why is. folks have assigned on and protest okay. so i thank you kind kindly thank you for your time and consideration. >> any other public comment. >> no. you spoken before here.

>> good evening, members of the board i'm on ashbury as i've testified i am saddened by the neighborhood wars waged by the planning commission against homeowners that want to expand their homes to the growing needs or simply due to the fact years of saving their money they wish to improve in their standard of living and stay in san francisco this is other example an apartment that will not in any way to be impacted is determined to stop the construction of a fully code compliant project that was approved twice in past year with variance as mr. sanchez as pointed out this time around the proposal was reviewed by the planning

commission and this board during the variance appeal and now in front of of this board again, the only claim the appellant has not made previously before is the new corona heights sports by supervisor wiener keep in mind this promoted home is not only outside the area under the interim zoning district but outside of supervisor wiener's district as such it can't and does not apply before you is a well-designed respectful project and this was designed properly the home which is will be placed between who existing buildings will not impact neighborhoods to the north at that time families are leaving the city this home

had been occupied the project sponsor roughs to participate ♪ process he does not wish to create bad faith with either group please deny this appeal t >> any public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll take rebuttal starting with the appellant are you mr. haney to join our 3 minutes into 6 together? yes? okay >> you want to go first. >> yeah. i appreciate the comments from the attorney and the public, however i think the bottom line role is a this is not going to effect the city

hourtd this is a luxury home which is going to be probably i mean the house next door is 2 thousand square feet it will be over $3 million not an issue of public housing it is about affordable housing this is not to build an affordable house i am sure the people moving into those extremely expensive homes they don't have children that is not about families the issue of the view from his desk and by the way i didn't know dave he didn't approach me i approached him we're actually not asking for a decrease in height of the building only the variance be decreased from 7 photo to 4 photo it will still block the view from the deck over his

garage that's not an issue the thing this house should jet out into the back he'll it is not an issue davies home is on a single lot it could go from street to street that's his lot this lot was created by this lot i don't understand why the city authorizes a lot and requires a huge variance and know hindsight is 20/20 but as i stated before the bottom line you could build a reasonable home without a large evaporates there are we're proposing to build over 3 thousand square feet home it is to maximize profit they could earlier build a smaller home without a variance thank you. >> i'd like to talk about a

little bit about follow-up with the da's comments and the typography i want to asphyxiate the point by drawing arrows i hope you see those those indicate the down slope so it is magnified by it's impact on the additional so there's down slope in all those directions every to the has an enormous impact we're grateful to the planning commission for recognizing they reduced it but if we look at the profile the general average profile increase an enormous impact to the alley and also surfacing facing east and west i'm going to put a few comments from kicker scott not here today

but i want to point out a couple of points he maids on august the 7 the zoning administrator balanced the con strident with the lots and required cigarette butt of the roar rearing to reduce the light and air we're saying it is two extensive at 7 feet the project sponsor would have he said he was not required to apply for a variance with the adjacent lots front on different streets this argument is false bans a recent survey and in addition there's a lot of discussion this is just for a family this is for for the owners family it is not speculative investment from the outset deed of trust recorded in april of 2014 transfers all rent

and leases solid this is a sell on process and not a small how is it is very creative how he represented from seven hundred square feet it is not seven hundred square feet it is too 34 hundred and they've hundred quote and actually, i'm getting those members numbers from the selling material is this a guy wanting to live there with his family clearly not he's a known speculator and we haven't mentioned a full aircraft and this 4 to the easements in reality is not usually space it is absolutely not usually space so and, of course supervisor

wiener resolution did not apply i recognize it didn't apply but the sentiment of the city the sentiment of the different areas clamoring for supervisor wiener's legislation those kind of speculative units are not acceptable in conclusion major neighborhood appeal support and commissioner sugaya supports it and 8 year occupant all left we're asking for a modest reduction of 3 photo or perhaps more if he would be so could i thank you. >> i'm sorry no more time for you to speak. >> we'll hear if or from permit

holder. >> the size of the home the 7 square feet sis to two bedroom levels parking lot at ashberg street the left side is 26 feet deep any foster encroachment so i'll leave it at that and here for questions. >> question is the property for sale. >> no what's the document. >> i'm not sure how the appellant got it at some point during the process there's a broker that came to him have interest in off market sale it was not on the market and not now and he intends to live there with his family thank you. >> mr. sanchez nothing i'm sorry

ma'am, the time for public comment has passed and the zoning administrator has indicated nothing foster commissioners the matter is submitted. >> second bite of the apple well, not acquit in my opinion in the following acceptance we heard the appeal of a variance. >> uh-huh. >> we did not hear an appeal on the project i understood the project was presented, however my comments that led to adapting or excuse me. uphold living it was predicated one the rear yard building line didn't combroechl

into the rear yard and the mid block open space what the variances allow, and, secondly, where the streets turns and created a line of the lot and created did the that's why i voted for upholding the surveillance i'm not no favor of this project i feel that it is out of scale open the rear and that it is not contextual to the neighborhood i'm not upholding the permit. >> madam president. >> nothing at the moment i'm not sure i august with my. >> i'm sorry but public

testimony is over it's not okay to speak i ask you to sit down those are the rules of this commission >> one of things they asked for us to consider cutting back will that change our mind about the project. >> no, we voted on the variance i don't think that impacts anything the appellant have brought forcibly forgot has nothing to do with on the opposite side of the block and street what has impacted on one of the appellants the height of the building the fact it is 5 stories in the rear other thing i explicit mentioned

to create the 5th floor basically excavating significantly from the gray line process process. >> what is for us not architects what do you mean. >> it means they're digging down if the rear yard there's a significant retaining wall but if you look at the existing grade line it runs more than half of the floor in terms of height. >> what's the difference between the height. >> in terms of what we allowed. >> right. >> we allowed basically that the rear yard property line can extend beyond the planning code mandated rear yard requirement so wouldn't the plans be the same the only difference an

elevator and other things removed since we saw it in japanese. >> in terms of no. >> there's variance but the variance allowed the rear wall of that building to go further into what would have been a code required rear yard. >> well, i'll say that most of what i heard was asking us to change what has been approved by the variance this is a rehearing i wasn't hearing quests requests to do other things to the building. >> i think this is correct from the presentation oral presentation by the two appellants not necessarily the same argument being made by other speakers