>> ms. gallagher i assume your representing both. >> could you you have the projector turned on and left on for the presentation please victor can we move it up a little bit please. good commissioners good evening for your record mary gallagher working with the appellants michelle as a single mom that lives open the north side of subject property and also appellant the medical director for the cities nonprofits blood center and also a first time homeowner in the 6 hundred square feet units overlooking madam clerk, is there any further business before this commission? yard in the project site so we have a current view of the situation and the proposed building here we have an existing number one compiling rear yard cottage added to one hundred percent of the buildingable areas i'm going to walk through you through 5 areas i ask you to keep in mind those are intertwined the cumulative impact that relatives if the appeal the first issue is by far the most important the vast and scale noting it's height and depth and lot coverage it's simply two large the guidelines is 6 design principles formulating is quote so insure the building scale is xhafbl with surrounding building when considering the immediate context of a project how the proposed project relates to the adjacent buildings but here's the site plan the proposed building and next to michelles the permit holder will be 89 feet deep michelles is 39 and the permit holder here and michelles here this is not an apples and oranges it is containership no vote the second illegal construction a view from michelles backyard looking at the cottage this is her back wall the current bathroom on the cottage was built without permit there's a letter from the former owner awe testing to the construction no permit on file from any date if the permit holder takes issue he limping pout out the alteration permit a 1950 permit only cooperated to a front section of the building this is also a near property window snaufltd about the same time with permit this is quality is not good this is what the original windows this is a 1910 photo of building although to the north and west fautdz it's obviously the windows on the other side would have matched you know see the close up the trim is not the same around the original windows and open page 6 of the historical evaluations of the permit he couldn't find a permit if at the states the window is legal show me the permit although they could have initiated the abatement process they choose not to by looking at the departments complaint tracking system pointed out you have an illegal bathroom and illegal window and adding to hundred periods of time with another large have you window too much building for the site next this is ashbury street the project site and michelles backyard you can hardly see them in the darkness there's a elevation from ashbury like one hundred and informative feats the permit holders june 21st 9:00 a.m. shadow study was if full sun with or without the project that never happens the terrain blocks the early sun it doesn't include data we're lead to building those yards get a lot of sun whether with or without the project but this is just not true those are danger very don't work spaces so far as project impact the project holders states quote we've done not guilty or i don't know how many shadow studies having no impact we look at the permit holders the proposed construction has minimum to no impact the picture shows the rear wall shaded before the project and then after the project sun shows up so there's more sun with the project okay. this is not even possible; right? notless some of the cottages are removed which it is not we asked i the permit holder to explain that phenomena this is the actual sun coming around the front of the cottage the sun that the casting open michelles building this is proposed with the permit before you so this is our exhibit f clearly there's some shadow impact eliminates not been able or ablely this sun and shadow is reactor like our shadow analyze which was labeled equinox solstice fourth the privacy so the privacy to acknowledge there's some loss of privacy but there maybe special situations correlate where a proposed project will have privacy to spaces that is a home that covers excess even if 85 percent of its lot special didn't begin to characterize the situation i want to note as the permit holder this one window is changed to horizontal so this large window is new and that illegal view window still remains okay 4th code compliance there's a very long-standing interpretation with you add to the front of a noncomplying structure not a 28 percent rear yard i need to priority provides for the balance of the lot let me read the full interpretation on payment 9 of the brief the existence of a building within the rear yard could allow for the expansion of the buildingable area overall lot coverage up to one hundred percent this is contrary to the principles of planning code with respect to lot are coverage in those cases they have provided the open space on the site the requirement will be bans an established patterns of a adjacent development and would be virtuosity to the area that is, i provided by a rear yard equal to 25 of the lot whichever is greater the space has to meet the dynamic in section 35 the zoning administrator shall require them require a varpsz the reference meets the minimum dimension has to meet it so this interpretation it's not about providing for open space on a deck that faces the street and only benefits the project sponsor but creating the open areas in places that benefit adjacent ben the author of this interpretation the former zoning administrator bob buildings the project didn't conform to this and the meanwhile is exhibit j i stated in the brief the last sentence does not relieve the former owner it serves in which open space serves no purpose so here we have the example you have a rear congressional and it's front wall is forwarded to the adjacent neighbors these are blind kaufrldz twaulz you develop not higher than the adjacent building you're not effecting or harm any adjacent properties there our actually, two versions of the lot rule one is where there's two buildings it dmart disparity there has to be 25 percent of lot areas between the knowledge the department enforces the application of that rule so the rule we're talking about tonight is there are two parts of building or one building connected you still need the 24 open area established on the partner of the adjacent element the zoning administrators is saying if you want to connect the two building all of a sudden that full requirement going away and you can develop one hundred percent of lot there's a gap in logic two levels of impact the micro levels that effect the adjacent properties but is making restraining order impact when i want to add to a cottage you can coffee one hundred percent of the buildingable area it's giving a huge incentive for developers to develop rear yard prospered do we want to get rid of every rear yard cottage? so this is the 1910 photo from the estate sale sutro radio restraining order with the developer and it was like a lot of rear yard congress's they're significant they're the earliest home on the block this ashbury cottage was landscaped for every passerby to joy and theyer quirkier or i didn't in architect they're one of the wonderful qualities about architecture in san francisco the difference of pittsburgh it's building types some buildings can be replaced rear yard cottages is not one finally this coverage at a policy level promotes the distribution of rear yard cottages and relatives in a building for two large in so doing blocks the sun unnecessarily and overwhelms the fabricated neighborhood this is the full rear the building again, it is just like your shadow analysis that the back the building at 8:50 a.m. no subpoena on a sunny day on november no sun sunny day this is today at 10:00 a.m. the sun is high in the sky this is the{window no sun are we talking about a lot of sun no, not a lot but a large proportion of the little sun this effects michelles backroom and every room in their unit thank you. >> we can e okay. we'll hear from the permit holder. >> fwg commissioner president lazarus and commissioners my name is tie bash my mooivens are the permit holders at 910 ashbury i want to talk about the reason my wife and i with seeking the permit in 2010, i was diagnosed with muscular disorder it is the loss of muscle control so severe lack of mobility and skill in the hands and severe pan in january 2013 following a search we got this home for disabled we worked intellectual with the staff to design a planning code that in an attempt to deal with my private matter does he discuss that or specifically ask for accumulation in the planning staff since my edition met all the requirement it simply was not necessary so for the first time during the planning commission meeting i pubically shared the information about my disbelieved i did see after a long personally battle and many emotional conversation with my wife without this information or withholding this might block my ability prior my conditions were discussed with mar gallagher on the first week when the appellant talked about their proposal the same petition which was attached as an exhibit to the brief i walked around the neighborhood and talked about the edition most were horrified they had to oppose the project without any information many have not reviewed the plans on the misrepresented the proposed edition was a 5 story house mar said that the edition will industry my neighborhoods rear yard she has nothing growing in her rear yard it will eliminate the fresh air i'm not sure how my edition do that and we didn't follow the proper notification because of my physical disabled we can't get both this home we spent $45,000 in property permits and still fighting for the site permit i expel it to grow to two hundred and thirty thousand more can be contributed to t to the drs appeal i'm hopefully, the board will agree with the agreement by the planning department and rdt 3 visits and the planning commission choose not to take dr and although, my wife to build a edition i'm going to give the rest to my attorney i'll be available for questions. >> good evening commissioners melinda with rose we're asking together you deny the appeal for the following reasons first, as tie mentioned in the code project not asking for concessions or mischievous it is a project under the code could search warrant have been build larger it will fit within the scale of the neighborhood and second this is not a project that has slipped through the cranks it was thoroughly reviewed and mraufd by the planning department and dbi and checked by zoning administrator and reviewed by the planning commission chose not to take a discretionary review and allow this project to proceed and third tie and molly have been receptive to remove a 6 foot tall fences and set back along the north property line the one point a that's important a number of the noechgsz o modifications were done after the discretionary review hearing although not action was required at this point further changes are necessary and will unreasonably he effect the property for tie i want to start off to talk about the project on the overhead here an aerial image of the site there's a an existing cottage it's in the center and rear the lasted lot there's 11 and half foot set back a rear yard area to maintain and a 7 to the set back from the north side and a 2 foot set back for the north side and 7 foot for the south side an existing lot the approved project will expand the property horizontally in a 3 thousand you 90 square feet home this is not an unusual or unusual size, in fact, many of the nearby homes are substantially larger a number along ashbury 1010, 1032 ashbury that's only a few as well as 14 of the 29 homes are had story not an unusual size and it will occupy about 80 percent of the lot not one hundred percent many homes are built over a larger propositions and this aerial view the adjacent properties month or providing very little to no set backs along the property lines so the set back are unusual for the area i'm going to put now an eastern elevation look at the home here this is the view from appellants property looking east you'll notice the lot is sloping steeply upwards from ashbury while the garage and first floor they're low grade 25 feet if ashbury this line shows the grade level line east that will be - the practical effect is 2 heights in stories you'll perceive the finished garage will have a handicap van and an access to the upper floors the first floor the floor plans is the first exhibit to the floor plans will contain a bedroom and study and media room those had wish below grade and the second floor a matter of the bedroom with an ada bedroom and a careful suite and even though third floor is the bulk of the living area and the upper is the kitchen and dining room a connecting to the existing building i also have a context the elevation of the building and sideways it easy to see i see the context as xardz to the neighbors we're not looking at a huge increase to the front of the property first liberalism looked like to address the issue by the permeating appellate their alleging this will dollars privacy while it they're concerned some loss of professes is keep in mind expected on the eastern elevation that was shown a number of concession have been made instead of one window there are a number of windows you'll see that have been trigsdz horizontally and above eye level here, here and here second the appellants are asking this home be redesigned there will be some shadow to the property this request is unreasonable the allegations of the shadow we're hearing before and after a speculative no professional shadow study ways duplicate or required it is september that most designs will have some shadow, however, we attempted to have less shadows and those are the shadowing analysis in the packet showing n noticeable shadow keep in mind there are a lot of existing property that will be thirty percent of the lot wealthy at the third floor and at the beginning of the light well and extends to the existing building again that upper level will increase by 3 feet in the interest of responding inform appellants request you're seeing a set back along the side that's much more substantial than in the neighborhood and third, the appellants argue this will create a large wall across the property that is he simply not true i mentioned easily below grade approximately 20 feet for the effect the building links for the height are visible from the prospective and also the set backs are specific designed to break down the massing in the area and fourth the appellants argue that the zoning administrator should be required to have a courtyard sierra club splitting the building we explained if our brief the da has looked at the open space it safer the interpretation as you. >> u saw in the aerial image there are space in to the rear and if they explicit apply with the open space to provide the space at the rear of the lot no to divide the home the interpretation gives the zoning administrator to looking at it as a case by case basis and finds this applies with the interpretation code finally, i want to brief touch on the alternatives that are put forth by itself appellant those are unreasonable the first as you can see in the final exhibit of our brief alternative one will sierra club call for carve out on the upper floor and require a breezeway eliminating our living room and dining room areas it would also lower the floor height and impact the second floor ada bathroom in the areas and the second alternative is extreme remove the entire third floor of the building so you'd loss lifrm, difrm and kitchen and severely impact the second floor thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you skooz planning staff i'll try to be brief we've had an doesn't even briefing the subject within a rh2 zoning district with regards to the rear yard requires an rh245 percent of the rear yard in this case, the work being proposed none of it is within the rear yard as denied in the planning code as pointed out there's an interpretation of the planning code that's been adapted over the years r&d a city council gent view when a building is set back with regards to the application i'll point out they proposed for their alternative that has a c shaped building that itself is not compiling with the appellants interpretation that central courtyard as noted further it states that