schemes, and they both make requests to document driving records, so putting the burden on the driver who cannot produce driving records, in this case, when those records, the original bills, which are to be maintained by the color scheme, were removed, so similarly, as the other commissioners said, i have a problem with that, because there is no way to definitively say onpresident got has been said. is there a motion? vice president garcia: it is unfortunate that we were not given some alternatives, because if we overturn, that means --

commissioner fung: continue this for them to negotiate something different. vice president garcia: i like that. i like that idea very well. someone want to make that motion? i will make it then. for them to work out some form of penalty for the 2007, 2008, but with emphasis, and i hope other members of the board will agree, that revocation is not appropriate. commissioner hwang: does that include suspension? fines were not imposed. vice president garcia: a, b, and

c. in other words, what we are hoping to get a negotiation by the two parties. director goldstein: commissioner garcia, how do you want that brought back? testimony? vice president garcia: testimony? president goh: testimony is fine. vice president garcia: testimony. saying that the appellate wants to pay fine or be suspended for x -- the appellant wants to pay a fine. possibly, they will come back with both of them. commissioner hwang: also, they could come to an agreement, and this could be withdrawn.

that could be another option. president goh: really, that would be the best. march 23? director goldstein: that is fine with the department. president goh: march 23 to continue. the party said indicated that march 23 works. director goldstein: we are looking for submittal prior to that date, i am assuming? vice president garcia: does anybody want more? director goldstein: they could be done at the same time. i think we have a motion. secretary pacheco: i believe the motion is from the vice president, to continue the

matter to march 23? the public hearing is held and closed. it is to allow parties time to negotiate an alternative penalty. additional briefing is allowed at two pages per party, all due one thursday prior to the hearing. on that motion, commissioner goh: , -- president goh, commissioner peterson is absent, commissioner hwang. there are 4 ayes. the matter is continued. president goh: we need a short break.

director goldstein: welcome back to the march 9, 2011, meeting of the board of supervisors. we will have our last item. secretary pacheco: and no. 9, appeal number 10-108, richard and cher zillman versus the historic preservation commission, for the property located at 280 divisadero

street, appealing the denial of a september 1, 2010, to the appropriateness. this is case number 2008.0312a. >> i did do a site visit. it looked to me that the windows were original. the roof was a mansard type. there was a seam, the owner pointed this out to me, which could have been from a larger door being there. that was a seam in the siding. the ceiling and walls had apparently been clad with wood,

which was then stacked against the walls. there was a second floor, and we could see upstairs. there were scares that had been leading up their that were painted but -- there were stairs. they had been removed and were laying there. there were three fixed windows in the rear of the property. they appear to be property line windows that were framed in. they were covered with plastic bags, so that we had to remove the bags in order to see that they were framed in, and there were windows, standing outside, there were windows on the south side of the second floor and also the roof, and that is all i have. later. commissioner hwang: i want to

disclose that i also did a site visit, and all of the things that president goh observed, all of the bags on the windows. i did not observe the framed in windows. commissioner fung: i will disclose that i made a site visit. i walked through the main building from the street rule, and i went into the rear yard and entered into the rear structure and buildings. -- i walked through the main building from the street. vice president garcia: i climbed the steps across the street on divisadero so i could have a vantage point. director goldstein: thank you. >> good evening, president goh,

commissioners. i am the applicant. we bring you a beautiful project. you are our last hope. i beg you, please, do not leave us with a design choice by the city that we will not be comfortable looking at for the rest of the days. -- the rest of our days. now, i would like to introduce our attorney. >> thank you, and to my right is an associate attorney in my office. when the voters several years ago created a new historic preservation commission with a real veto powers on projects, many predicted that this would result in a number of appeals to your board. well, it has not happened, and the fact that this is the first such appeal is historic, and it also means that the historic preservation commission and its staff have done a good job of balancing the needs a

preservation and the needs of property owners and should be congratulated on that and, of course, when my brief refers to 13 different planners over the years where we believe have made mistakes, and one man was not one of them, but mistakes were made, and the previous advisory board could not come to a decision on the appropriate design, even after some simplification of the design at their request. now, just before this project was to go before the planning commission, they asked that the eir be done over from scratch because it was decided that it was mistaken in not calling it a the facto demolition.-- a de facto demoliton. -- demolition.

there were vacations, changes in jobs and assignments, and that was mostly responsible for this amount of time. i say mostly because mr. zillman had to deal with some life threatening illness. the planning department recently gave you some yellow highlighting examples from the interior guidelines, some from some standards, some from the reconstruction standards. they are very different, but i would maintain that perhaps neither should be applied. this is a special situation, or perhaps, from each, but let me talk about the a little bit. the rehabber standards are supposed to be used when there is some building left -- the rehab standards. the reconstruction is used when

you have varied little evidence that something is there, but you may have narrative stories or perhaps some foundations that you can figure out archaeological it. now, we do not have either of these situations -- that you can figure out archaeological linked -- archaeologically. this is why i suggest two options, including applying none of them. there are some guidelines that should be applied here and are very clear. the project should not confuse the public between what is original, what is very old, and what is new. the structure cannot distract from the main structure, and the main structure here is the beautiful and historic old house. now, i think there is at least four or five reasons.

you will see that the building in the rear is a very diminutive scale. you will see there are victorian note -- victorian structures. there is the ornate and is that is sometimes 10 feet tall. there is an amalgamation of styles which really confused a few people. the cross section of the cottage, which you just saw, shows it is sunken and diminutive. the public cannot see it from a public place. you will hear from preservation people tonight, including in the eir comments, and it was stated that there is a complete lack of integrity and that the building was in serious disrepair when the zillmans purchased it, not

a case of deferred maintenance. "a reasonable manner." as for economic feasibility, the only way my clients would be able to finance this -- they believe they have designed this project in a manner that makes the unit one that renters would be more excited to live in, the most excited to live in, and the planning department roux and exterior of a barn but gave no idea of how the interior should look -- and the planning department drew an exterior of a barn. it is a longstanding policy of the planning department that they do not do it for a property owner. they just critique what a property owner does.

i do not know why it was done here. it is confusing. there was a great or nakedness, much more than that of a barn -- a greatcoat ornateness. they are saying it is a carriage house. we are confused. carriage houses were as ornate as the front buildings. finally, note i would like to say -- finally, i would like to say that the zillmans would be the least likely people to confuse the public between a new project and something that is very old. the commission has left no alternative, which means if you

disapprove tonight, they have to go through an eir and other processes. excuse me. i would just like to say to people behind you to shorten their testimony. it has been a long evening. the commissioner has asked me that only the first few take their appropriate minutes and that those that follow either do not speak or perhaps say in 30 seconds something they need to say, because it is getting late, but we appreciate your comments and just acknowledge that you are here, i would like all of you in support to stand up. thank you very much, and they for coming. -- cote and thank you for coming. -- and thank you for coming. director goldstein: mr. frye.

>> to a landmark property in san francisco is a fairly typical process. before it the board of supervisors makes a decision to land market property, -- before the board of supervisors make a decision, they vet it through several committees. when this project was designated, the carriage house was always considered an important part of this individual landmark, and the carriage house exists today visually, while not maybe in its condition, but maybe the same way it was in 1988, so that gives the planning department and indication that the building still retains a high level of integrity from the time it was designated. now, to just back up a little bit and talk about the certificate of appropriateness. the c of a is necessary, and we

are talking about the exterior walls and roof line of the carriage house and then the main residence at the front property line. projects that meet the secretary -- at me to the secretaries standards receive a certificate of appropriateness -- projects that need to the secretary -- meet the secretary's standards receive a certificate of appropriateness. they cover everything from new construction to simple maintenance. standards are applied to the entire landmark, regardless of its visibility or its location on the site. because the board of supervisors designated both buildings was at 280 divisadero,