another in compliance with the design guidelines. all right, with the remainder of my time, i would like to allow ms. rosen and another to address you. >> the primary reason for requesting this appeal hearing is to voice my objections to the result of the hearing. to disregard the findings of the residential design team. they reached their decision independent of my request " for dr -- my request for dr. i naively thought this would be enough to convince the commissioners. i am teaching full time at the school where my son is and caring for my elderly mother. my community and friends consists mainly of the children i teach.

i cannot bring prominent patrons of the arts to speak on my behalf. ultimately, i did not want another hearing. i never asked my neighbors do not build, just to modify their plans, and i kept hoping we could reach a compromise. to that end, i continue to offer more suggestions, each more modest than the last, only to have them all met with objections. the project sponsors have been unwilling to discuss with made -- discuss these with me. when i expressed concerns about the demolition aspect of this project -- i do not know retired commissioners, but i do know a number of contractors, note in that note that the demolition requires an expert -- but i do

know a number of contractors, and i know that the demolition requires an expert. i'd seen the results of a do-it- yourself projects in my neighborhood, and so has the building department. there was the nearby case on congo street, in my neighbor wants to act as his own contractor. i would like to leave you with the image of a fence that was built in front of a 70g 1ranada. it replaces one that stood there for years -- in front of 71 granada. from the day it was erected, it started to fall down, one plate at a time. o -- none plank at a time. this is an example of things to come. i hope this will be given

scrutiny. i urge you to accept my appeal. >> good evening. i am a civil servant, and i have been a professional for over 30 years, and i am here to my professions code of ethics. i feel i should make this comment about the decisions regarding the project. while i do not fall of the project design strategy, i take issue with the use of testimony of an active and out of county commissioner taking a public stand to favor the project. the next person to testify on behalf of the project was even more objectionable. that would be the retired president of the san francisco planning commission. i feel that human nature at the very least may have swayed the

court for this project. the planning department's approval of this project was an inappropriate decision, of mind of their and residential design team's findings of the incompatibility of the project towards the surrounding homes and neighborhoods. the project designers argue that there are other similar structures in the neighborhood, but what they fail to understand is that there are nonconforming already existing structures that may have been grandfathered in, unlike their own demolition construction. this kind of conflicting interpretation is down to impact the public space in the system. the last thing i want to mention is that at the hearing, there was public testimony by a planning commissioner that was personally offensive to me. this person stated that it was important to keep young artists in san francisco and allow them to build. let's not forget that there are several options available to them.

public-school teachers do not. it was offensive to me to hear the implied respect for the teaching perception concerning the entitlement of young artists. in closing, it is my opinion that the celebrity status of the design people and the active commissioners support see this. -- sealed this. we want the scaled back to a more modest degree. thank you for listening. president peterson: thank you. we can hear from the permit holders now. >> commissioners, you of a

motion -- have a notion. >> our presentation is in the form of a video. >> we urge you to not a discretionary review and to accept this as proposed. >> they purchased the property at 71 granada to remodel it with utmost concern for the neighborhood and the environment. the house is the smallest dwelling on the block. the owners of live in cramped quarters during their 4.5 permit process. in 2006, under the supervision of a senior planner, they began using considerable resources

with a plan that was subjected to multiple reviews and procedures. the permit holders started their neighbor outreach early in received support of the entire neighborhood. the land use and housing committee recognize the project and has voted to endorse the project. in 2009, the permit holders were approved for a various decision, and there were notification letters that were sent out by the department. the appellant was the only neighbor to object to the project. it was for one reason, the impact of the view from her balcony. the permit holder made substantial alterations to the design, including expanding the space, relocating the mezzanine windows, lowering the roof, and

sloping it down, to try to not obstruct their noncompliant windows. the appellant claimed it obstructed too much of the view from her kitchen window. they wanted to work things out at community boards. the impact of the litigation was to know effect. and the department discovered that the residential design team -- inadequate design guidelines. yards.

they are referring this to the commission until they adequately address modifications. after a modest expansion, it was smaller than the appellants house -- appellant's house. there are solar systems which include solar panels, the addition of new trees, and rain water cisterns. there is a low impact design. 799 square feet. the permit holder submitted to

the appellant and the city about making it suitable for a single family. san francisco architect ian murray made a comment. the appellant has presented no objective evidence, other than her own desire it. there were the neighborhood groups. the appellate argues that the permit holder after 4.5 years of work in favor of the residential design team's recommendation to build a separate two-story structure. the permit holder used a model to demonstrate the effect it would have on the appellant,

which was talked about by commissioner moore. commissioner moore: architect ian murphy, she will, indeed, it continue to enjoy it freestanding home. i would support your motion and asked that we approve it. -- and ask that we approve it. >> this is kind of the reverse of what we usually see. neighbors want it smaller. >> we like to take into consideration what staff recommends. i err towards the d.r.

requester. it is an extraordinary project. it is sustainable and thoughtful. >> i think this is a very modest addition. there is the orientation of the existing building on the lot, and i think it is great to use that, and i do not think it you should be penalized for doing so. we're talking about a very modest addition, 1400 sq. ft. overall, for us very small for what we normally see. a love the fact that your window is part of your solar heating. >> the appellate would have the board believe that members of the commission acted arrogantly when they acted unanimously to support the project. if anything, there was an error for making recommendations based on documents.

we request date continue. thank you for your consideration. [bell] commissioner gorse the: -- garcia: well timed. president peterson: there is a question about the licensing of the contractor. >> it is interesting she should ask the question, because we're still working on getting a contractor. in fact, we have been waiting for 4.5 years to do that. we go back to the contractor and

it is because they have gone away or moved away, so we will be getting a fully licensed contractor. president peterson: thank you. mr. sanchez. >> scott sanchez, planning department. i do not think that there is much that i can add to the presentation other than to say that i can clarify a bit about the department's history and position on it. the department did find that the staff had complied with the residential design guidelines. the planner had made that decision. the discretionary review was filed. at that time, it was taken to the residential design team, and that is where we came up with the conclusion that changes need to be made to the project, so it is clear evidence that it was a close call from the department's point of view at least in making that decision, and then it was brought before the planning commission. a unanimous vote of the planning

commission is, i think, a pretty clear indicator that they think a project complies with the residential design guidelines, and with that, i would respectfully request that the board of told the planning commission's decision to not take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed. i am available for questions. vice president goh: one of the things we saw in the video is about historic review. can you talk about that? >> it is part of the categorical exemption for the review for the project, that it was not a historic resources, but there were appropriate criteria calm and there had been changes made to the building. there was no historically important person who lived there and was not representative of a larger pattern, so they thoroughly evaluated and found that it was not in a resource. vice president goh: nor was an

appeal taken. >> no. vice president goh: commissioner fung: 2. -- .vice president goh: thank you. commissioner fung: mr. sanchez, do not go yet. vice president goh: a swimming pool. can you talk about those? >> i do not have specific information on those other than what was presented to you. there was the permit holders' evaluation today. vice president goh: ok. commissioner fung: it was stating in here that one of your planners worked extensively with the permit holder. >> yes, as the project's sponsors indicated, it has been

a process of 4.5 years. it was submitted in 2009, but there was an older variance decision, and i am a little unclear how the contact first began, whether it was a project review meeting or they first came to the department to discuss it, but it is common for members of the public to have a project review meeting, and that is when the first to engage with the department, and they will take the proposal and make changes based on department comment, and there was 2008. commissioner fung: prior, there were other levels of review it beside the single planner. >> yes, the design team has been in place for several years. we changed how it is used. it used to be voluntary.

they would go to the residential design team and seek advice. usually, a planner works with their team later, and they would work with them to deal with the residential design guidelines issues, so usually, it is a collaborative effort. with the team leader having some involvement. and the residential design team, which is now a more standardized -- now more standardized. that is a new requirement. >> -- commissioner fung: there are two others. if my memory serves me correctly, the planning department in most of those incidents, those were, of

course, the different, -- slightly different. but it would allow the current zoning to take place of a bam a certain point -- up to to a certain point. there is the nonconforming use. this instance is slightly different. >> looking at different development patterns in different parts of the city. this is located in our rh1 district, whereas in north beach, it is a higher density district, so we would see a building in front of the property in a building in the rear, seeking to expand the building in front and limit the expansion at their rear. i think there are just

different development patterns. president peterson: thank you. mr. corn field -- kornfield. >> laurence kornfield, department of building inspection. the state law is very clear as to who is able to do work. it is regulated under state law. either the owner can do this, or a licensed contractor can do this work, so we do not have any legal authority to say you may not get a permit, you may not do the work. it is encouraging to hear the project sponsors say they're going to hire a licensed contractor. either owners or directors must comply with the federal and state laws regarding asbestos

and lead, has this material protection, and that is, once again, not regulated by the city. it is typically regulated by other agencies, including the air quality management control district. the epa. and other agencies. and i want to bring to your attention a problem, and should the commission or board of appeals choose to uphold this permit, we need to deal with this problem, and that is that this permit authorizes work on the main structure at the rear of the property and also the construction of a new structure at the front of the property. a person may not be issued for two separate structures. the building code is extremely clear. one section says "no building or

structure may be erected and constructed, and center, lest a separate permit for each building or structure has first been obtained." in trying to think about how to deal with this, i think what i might recommend the board of appeals do, should you choose to uphold the permit, is to ask the permit older to strike all the references to the new front structure, small structure, and to apply for a separate permit for that small structure at the building department. we can all sign off on that quickly and easily, but it does have about a separate permit, and it does have to be removed from this permit in order to allow this permit it to proceed, so that is one way to deal with it. there may be other ways, but that is one way. thank you. commissioner fung: which raises

a question for mr. sanchez then. what does that do to notice? >> scott sanchez, planning department. in regards to notification, i would argue that since the project, the proposal, has already gotten the section 311 notification and has gone before discretionary review, the permit would not trigger a new neighbor notification, unless the design of that front structure was enlarged in some way. it has already been clearly vetted by the planning commission. a revision permits or something along those lines. it is not a substantial new deviation. in terms of the appeal process, yes, that would add a 50-day appeal to the sport after the issuance. commissioner fung: so planning things that this is predominantly a building code

issue? >> yes. president peterson: we can move to public comment then. is there anyone here who wishes to speak on this matter? please step forward. you have one minute. >> i have been a neighbor on granada and a sister to diane. president peterson: if you are a family member, you have to speak under the previous. commissioner fung: it is ok. >> i am also living in the neighborhood. maintain the historic feel of a neighborhood that has a certain field. the worst impact of this design is the rear of the property. thee hy -- the hyper modern look. the birds will fly up there.

the new garden area it in the shadow of their art house, i fear it will grow into the foundation. on my block, there is a modern building, and they throw their neighbors into shadow. i am curious of that will unfold. and i am here for my sister and my nephew. [bell] president peterson: any of the public comment? step forward. sir, if you're going to speak, as well, please step forward. anyone who wants to, please come forward. thank you. >> good evening. my name is -- and ibm a san francisco resident and a

property owner, not too far away. i have lived in my home, the house that i and, for 18 years. i am here to support the project at 70 onegranad -- 71 granada. i have known them for years, and i can vouch for their character. they are unpretentious people, trying to create something more than their managers 660 square feet that they have been inhabiting as this process goes into its fourth year now. i understand the issues that can come up because i did my own remodel, as well, in their outreach to the neighborhood has just been exceptional in my experience. they have met with neighbors, they have changed their plans -- [bell]

to accommodate ms. rosen's complaints. thank you. president peterson: thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is david gardner, and i live across the street at 70 g 70 grana -- at 74 granada. i submitted something. i do not know if you got it. i am hoping this moves forward and closes the window on this delay process. a quick comment on the objections. too massive for the location, it did not seem to be a problem when she expanded her place at over 1,000 feet in korea is something that looks like a home depot building in the middle of our block. -- her place in a 1,000 feet and

something that looks like a home depot building in the middle of our block. it was good enough for the last 100 years. [bell] president peterson: thank you very much. next speaker, please. nd i am an architect on the project. president peterson: is this with the project? >> yes. president peterson: you can speak during the rebuttal then. we are moving to rebuttal. you have three minutes. >> thank you, court members. i am here on behalf of the appellant. the genesis of the comments of

it being too bulky and massive and out of character for the neighborhood are not ours. they started at the residential design team, who reviewed this project, and i want to make it clear that there was no connection between the d.r. request and the residential design team review. these were two independent things. and, in fact, ms. rosen did not even know that residential design team has looked at this project and made the findings that they did until shortly before the hearing, so there is no connection between those two things. ms. rosen did not call upon that wa. this independent team found this was out of character, massive, bulky, and the other reasons that are attached to our brief. let me leave the board with this. that is the opening to the residential design guidelines. the question at the outset is