building or apartment requires it both in terms of demolition and construction? rex we have not had those conversations. our conversation surrounded logistics about late briefs and such. we did not even know these were concerns until we saw their brief. they did not contact us and say, can you talk to us about this demolition? we are really concerned. how will you deal with hazardous materials? we would have been happy to talk to them about that. i am not quite sure what to say. i am at a little bit of a loss. i believe after so much process has taken place, by now, the neighbors should have -- >> thank you. you have answered my question. >> any further questions? thank you. >> thank you.

mr. snyder. >> commissioners, thank you. for the record, dan snyder with department staff. off the bat, to respond to some of the questions raised by the commission and to the appellant, it is important to stress that we take our process very seriously. in this case, i need to assure you that the review and noticing of this project was done by the book. it is code compliant. it complies with the residential guidelines. with respect to one of the specific suggestions made, the section 311 neighborhood notice, which is a 30-day notice sent to all properties that are owned or occupied within 150 ft. of the development, that was issued on the eighth of july. included in that rather large

mailing was noticed to party lucas indienne that 35 miramar. it was a notice of proposal. it was a notice saying this is being presented. it has been complying to our resumed -- review standards and hours are opportunity for a 30 day time frame to weigh in. the subsequent discretionary review is only sent to immediate and adjacent properties. this property is one away from that threshold. the policy that determines that has been in place since at least two thousand. with respect to the issues raised by commissioner hillis, this is somewhat unusual in that it was first filed in 2005. they went through three separate notification processes, first in 2005 when a discretionary review was filed and then again

in 2011, the july 8th meeting that just mentioned. the reason there was no discretionary view prior to december, 2011, is that the project was not at that time entirely consistent with our policies. it was not a complete application. in the intervening time between 2005 and 2011, a significant changes such that when the hearing did occur, we were told there no more issues with the project. no additional d.r. was filed in that second time frame. and at the hearing, there was no opposition. the planning commission acted unanimously to approve. this person, the appellant, has not been involved in the formal

proceedings with the project in as much as the department plays a role. it would be -- it is important to respond to the discrete issues she has raised tonight. again, the issues related to the demolition and construction and the mechanics, those are addressed in the building codes and planning codes. the privacy issues and into the third floor deck at the front of the structure also raised as an issue. it is important to note that the front building wall of the appellants property is separated from the front building wall of the proposed structure by about 100 ft.. it is a significant distance. that is important for you to know. we do live in and dense urban environment. this is not an extraordinary situation. we do not expect undue noise or privacy issues. i do want to state that the

project has been determined by our internal residential design team and has been formed to buy the planning commission -- has been affirmed by the planning commission that this building is consistent enough with the 80's and buildings. lastly, parking. the project provides two of st. planning -- parking spaces -- two off-street parking spaces. the planning department only requires one. additional parking in this building, which could accommodate up to three spaces without going through a conditional use process with the planning commission, while that could be accommodated in the building, it would be a bulging out of the structure to accommodate that space. i do not think anyone involved in the process things that any further expansion of the envelope of the building would be appropriate. we do want to stress that the project has been through an extensive seven-year long public

planning process. our staff is public " -- is comfortable with it. the d.r. requestor is comfortable with it. and the planning commission by a vote is comfortable with it. we would respectfully suggest that you deny this appeal and uphold the permit as is. gregg's mr. snyder, -- >> mr. snyder, the notice of proposal that went out in july, what response did you get to that? >> i can look on the docket. we did not get any requests for discretionary review. as two inquiries or statements of support or opposition, -- as to inquiries or statements of support our position, -- >> [unintelligible] >> the discretionary review

hearing on the eighth of december of last year this that there were no comments either in support of or opposition to the project at that time. >> up to that point in time. >> my question is one of the statements made by the project sponsor's council -- counsel, was that the third floor? would it have been in planning? could it have been in code if there were no livable deck in that space, or would that have been out of compliance? correct if i understand you correctly -- >> rather than a deck in the living space, would that have been permissible? >> the answer is yes. the design guidelines based on

context to the pleas strip -- stress a 15-foot top-level. >> additional 15 ft.? >> beyond where the living wall is. in this case, there is a front to back line that applies to this side of the street and the other side of the street. this is akin to that, but it is not adjacent to the front of the building debt. it is a concrete number that is legislatively fixed and cannot be varied. i believe is 12 ft. on either side of the street. it could be 10. i am not 100% sure. that is required. and beyond that, there is the top-level set back that you are identifying. >> it sounds like it would not be within the residential guidelines to have fill that space with interior space.

i'm asking because i am wondering if there's anything in the favor of the project sponsor for not having realized that space. you know, using less space than the maximum potential buildout. >> our residential design team said this was appropriate. whether that would be appropriate for a different building in a different context is a very valid question. >> in response to commissioner hwang's question, residential design guidelines are not part of the code. but it is a tool that came through many years of experience and aggregation of criteria that is supposed to mitigate some of the conflicts between neighbors as these buildings go. what would have happened if this did not conform, the planning

department staff would not have recommended approval. >> thank you for making my response far more articulate. >> sorry? rex i was just thanking the commissioner for making my response far more articulate. >> i just added another point to it. [laughter] >> what about the cats? whose responsibility is that? gregg's not us, commissioner. i believe the spca is responsible. but i will defer to, perhaps, my colleague, mr. duffy? dbi is not responsible either. spca have a program devoted to straight route life. i am far from an expert in that. >> thank you. >> mr. duffy?

>> commissioners, the building permits, both the demolition and the new construction permits from a building point of view seemed to have been property checked. i do not see anything to be concerned route from reading that. i think there are some issues about the dust at the site. they're obviously not monitored by dbi. it is considered a smaller project as demolition goes and would not fall under the health department, for example. but we certainly have something in our code to enforce that. the construction work hours are 7 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. we do ask the developers to maybe do some outreach and work with the neighbors to curtail that of a bit less. i think that are mentioned. a.m. to 6:00 p.m. monday through

saturday -- maybe that is a bit much, but the saturdays maybe will get some complaints of it. i do not think there is much else you can get from me for building code issues. >> some of those standards of care, are they written in that document, or is that something that can be provided to the public? gregg's you mean the work hours and the clean site? >> yes, the devilish an anti clean out and the watering down and all of that -- the demolition and the clean hours -- the clean site and the watering down and all of that. >> yes, there are regulations that are there to address the clean site and the level of dust. and then the osha requirements probably come into play as well.

parking on the street, that is dpw and the department of parking and traffic. the animals, i would say the spca. not me. >> ok, thank you. are there members of the public who wish to speak on this item? please raise your hands. we will take public comment now. if you will please come up to this side of the room and line up, i can't. the first speaker can come up -- if you can't. the first speaker can come up to the podium. >> a request has been made for a very short break as people organize themselves for public comment. three to five minutes. very short period sorry, thank you.

>> we are returning to the items a and b. members of the public that wish to speak, please step forward. it would be helpful to move this along vaster -- along faster. if you could please give the card to mr. pacheco, it would help us in the preparation of our minutes. if you have not fill one out already her, you can do so.

>> my name is ken duncan and i live about three houses away from 42 miramar on the same house of the street -- same side of the street. i went through this same vein -- same vein years ago. i really appreciate the care and diligence that you take in considering these things. i would also like to commend the people who are applying for this project. they are in keeping with the prevailing neighborhood by holding back 15 ft.. my only concern and sorrow is that they are not keeping with the rest of the buildings in adding a third story. this block, as you saw by those pictures house after house, unique design, two stories

maximum or if there is a garage, one story over that from the top of the street down to the bottom. dozens of houses. none of them are even close to this size. 1500 square feet on the ground floor. there is probably not a house on the whole block that is 1500 square feet total. the fact that i lived three houses away from this -- we went through this. the first guy that brought the house after tom died in the mid 2000's overpaid double for what was essentially a lot of value. that is what started all of this. four hundred thousand dollars for this tear down shack on a 25 ft. wide lot. ever since then, whoever has been involved in this starting with mr. buckley has tried to get their money back by building a house that is ridiculous the outsized for the rest of the neighborhood. if any of you lived on this treaty would be standing there

saying the same thing i was not notified of the second go around with this. i went through the first one i just object to the entire process. if you're going to open it up to another d.r., that would be great. but the fact is, you are dropping this down into eight -- this bloated thing down into a quiet neighborhood. it is just wrong. consider the neighborhood. look at the pictures she presented and put this thing in the middle of it. it is shameful. i thank you very much for your time. >> did you respond at all to the notice of proposal that was sent out in july? but the first time when we went

through this when it was mr. lee proposing the project, the fellow that is third there in line -- >> i am talking the more recent. >> i was not notified of it. what i did mine, 300 ft.. we had to send it out to the people on the next street, across the street come up and down the street. it is just not the same. >> good evening. i am the owner of 60 miramar avenue along with my partner. we purchased our home in october of 2006 as it was one of the few single-family homes that we could afford in san francisco.

our home is three homes to the north of 42 miramar on the same side of the street. we were never notified of the d.r. on the eighth of december in 2011. the proposed restored building is out of scale and proportion for the neighborhood. as planned, it will dwarf the two one-story buildings that find it and is taller than most of the buildings on our street. we recommend the building be scaled down to a one-story building that will be in scale with the buildings that flank it and the majority of the buildings on our street. it will be out of character for our neighborhood and is likely to introduce additional street and neighborhood noise due to the external outside living space.

10 to 25 featured the outside -- adequate outside dwelling space for the deck. we recommend its removal from the plants. the design and the of the building does not appear to fit into the smaller, more charming homes on the street. we recommend design and scale be revised to a more -- more appropriate looked so that it integrates with the dwellings on our street. we question the ground floor plan for what appears to be a two-car can't -- tandem garage on the ground floor with the increasingly limited street parking. as residents of one of the two homes on our streets without a garage, we have experienced an alarming increase in the lack of street parking in the six years we have lived there. many on our street have a high

number, four and above vehicles per residents that have garages. we questioned the need for four doctors for a 4-bedroom home. it appears it would be very easy to add a ground floor and third floor kitchen, turning the building into a three-unit building. it appears this home is not planned for a single-family residence and will most likely end up a rental property on a street that is primarily truly single-family households. thank you for listening to our concerns and recommendations. we want this proposed willing to seem as they fit into our streets an invalid. we want 42 miramar to make a lasting contribution to the entire street and neighborhood. thank you. >> did you receive the notice last july? >> no, i did not.

>> thank you. next speaker. >> good evening. my husband and i live in 26 miramar. where were the original filers for the first d.r. i want to address two issues. the first, the history of this project. i want to tell you about our interaction with the applicant. before the d.r. we tried to contact them to discuss this project. they refuse to even call us back and they threaten to file a lawsuit. after the d.r., we worked with them, with a series of expediters and teams of engineers that a higher. but it seems they could not get

-- keep their engineers or expediters and we kept working with a new group of people every year. in the original request, we requested three items. one is to reduce the size of the building and second is to reduce the height of the building and the third is to read -- is to add additional parking. i want to address the question that -- the reason why we missed the d.r. hearing. both my husband and i were at work and i'm going to school part time for my master's degree and i am working full- time. we were under the assumption that the neighborhood had received the notifications and they will be there to represent us. i am sorry that -- it seemed to

cause a lot of confusion, but we were under the assumption that the neighborhood was notified. we also worked extensively with tom on the building department. the communication we provided was that we were satisfied with the project progress. we were not satisfied with the results. when he pressed as for a written notification to withdraw the d.r. request, we never did that. i'm here to propose to open -- to reopen the d.r. for discussion and i propose that they just hear what the neighbors want to say. and they can address the concerns. >> just to be clear, two of the three items were, you think, i have been resolved by the

current proposal? which one did not? >> the original plan was an absolute monstrosity, much, much larger than it is now. it was initially 75% of the lot, from the very front to the very back. that was just the actual property. then they had a deck on the back on each floor going up. it was an absolute monstrosity. we brought the city back into our backyard and said, look, this is our backyard. right now, we can see the ingleside. we are on top of the hill. from the front of cars out -- front of our house we get to the fairmont. from our roof we can see oakland. we're on top of the hill. if this happens about all we will see is this building. later on, we started