why do we have presidential guidelines. in short, it is to maintain the visual interest of and never hurt. it is important that the design of new buildings and renovations to existing buildings be compatible with nearby buildings. a single building out of context with its surroundings can be disruptive to the neighborhood character, and if repeated often enough, to the image of the city as a whole. thank you for your consideration. we would ask that the board overturned the finding and reinstate the rdt's finding that discretionary review be taken and the project modified in line with those suggestions. president peterson: there might be a couple of questions. i have one for you. is it true that your client's property is 35% smaller than the appellant's? >> to be candid with you, i have not done a side-by-side

percentage measurement. currently, the existing permit holder's home is smaller, for sure. we can see that in the pictures. i do not know if it is 35% smaller. president peterson: thank you. that is it. thank you. now we can hear from the permit holders. you have three minutes of rebuttal. >> my name is muriel maffre. commissioner garcia: i am sorry to interrupt, but move the microphone. >> ben pierce and i are not developers. we are artists in san francisco residents. i have worked here for more than 20 years and have lived in the presidio 15 years. we have demonstrated care and willingness in our approach to reach out to the community and work with the development. we came to the planning commission and all the members agreed except one.

why did we go to the planning department and the community experts the planning commissioners were unanimous in recommending the balance nature of the project. they commend our effort to maintain an open space at the front of our lot. the main idea behind this project is to confirm -- is to create a home that is affordable and respectful to the community and the environment. this was a challenge, considering the parameters -- an urban setting, a long, and an existing structure. we've used best environmental practices and moderate urban development. we strongly believe the project embraces these values and best practices. because of this, it is within the city's general plan. they say the project does not comply with all standards and requirements of the planning code, specifically the finding from the residential design

team. the department established that the residential design guidelines used by the residential design team is an inadequate document to evaluate real estate strategies. the subject never heard us. it is a mix of architectural styles "with no unifying design character," and a regular street wall, and a disrupted open space. we aim to come to par with the rest of the neighborhood houses by turning this diminutive cottage into a two-story house, creating a design which combines with a mix of architecture's in the neighborhood. considering the age of the existing property, we opted to preserve the rear design of the property as its principal identifying feature. furthermore, the project is described as modest in size and

scale by the seven planning commissioners. the vertical addition sids in front of the rare setback line. finally, the project remains 35% smaller than the neighboring house. i believe there outstanding grievances with the planning commissioners were insensible to all the issues at hand. the planning commissioners justified their findings during the deliberation. i would like to ask the board to reject the appellant's appeal and upheld the permit. thank you. president peterson: thank you. mr. sanchez? >> scott sanchez, planning department. there was a variance decision for the rear yard issued in december 2009 and was not subsequently appealed. in regards to the timing of the residential design team review, on page 3 of the discretionary

review analysis which is contained in the appellant have brief, on page 3 of paragraph 4, it clearly states the residential design team review was triggered by the discretionary review request. that was the timing. we did the notice first. dr was filed. that triggered the review by the residential design team and the subsequent recommendation of the department. i would like to point out for the board that the adjacent property is located to the south of the subject property. one would imagine there would not be much impact in terms of light and air. additionally, it is set back substantially from the property line the full depth of the building. it is set back 5.5 feet from the side property line. this is not a wide lot. they have a very narrow building. i think they're building is a little bit less than 20 feet wide. i think it is probably doubling the size of the building, but it was a very small cottage to

begin with. this is something that is necessary to modernize the building to make it more livable and habitable. the permit holder has pointed out all the issues regarding the conscientiousness of the environmental design and the footprint, the impermeable surface of the lot. the have a rain water catchment system proposed. they have made numerous efforts to try to minimize impacts on this, not only design on the neighborhood but also impact on the environment. it is for those reasons that the planning commission found that the project was supportable unanimously. it is the planning commission's decision. they are the final arbiter in our realm for the residential design guidelines. i respectfully request you uphold their decision. any questions? vice president goh: this little cottage in the rear -- i am

sorry. i think this was in your brief, but i did not understand it. it is a non-conforming building. it is my understanding from other cases you have said that one cannot improve a non- conforming building. >> you are exactly right. that is what they received the variance for last year. vice president goh: what is the planning department's view of what will happen to this diminutive cottage in the city if by your analysis that would be allowed to become hyper- modern, in your language, more lovable building. >> there is a formula to it. we cannot have a cookie cutter application. we looked at each one individually. if the cottage is a historic resource, we would have a different approach to our review. i feel like we did review this appropriately and apply the appropriate requirements.

vice president goh: who were the commissioners who spoke belowdecks the former commissioners, i mean, who spoke during public comment? >> one of the people listed in the variance decision letter -- it is not a recent commission member. commissioner fung: i think he left the commission 19 years ago. >> the full list is available in exhibit a of the appellative brief at the bottom. it lists all the speakers who were at the hearing. there were 10 or 15 people who spoke in support of the project and i think three who spoke in support of the dr. vice president goh: thank you. president peterson: mr. kornfield, anything futher?

>> commissioners, the matter is before you. vice president goh: i am trying to figure out how i know the appellants and i still do not know and do not recognize the name, but i know them from somewhere. is that not right? we do not need to talk about what school, but i have a feeling it is through that. it obviously will not affect my review of the case since i could not place it, but i felt i should put it on the record. i will start talking since i am already talking. my sense of this project, looking at these pictures, is at the residential design team originally got it right and that it is unfortunate we did not come to that variance for the improvement of the non- conforming building when it

happened. i think that to take a tiny little precious cottage like this and expand it in that way is incorrect and does not conform to the residential design guidelines. i also think that these buildings that are built -- commissioner fung made reference to this in another part of town -- buildings that are set back like that and that were built 100 years ago. if we do not protect that, we will end up with a city that does not have any of those cottages. i can understand wanting to expand your building if you are living in 600 square feet and it is not enough for you. but we have had cases before us before where we say maybe it does not make sense to buy a

small building if you want one that is so much bigger. those are my comments for now. commissioner fung: actually, having participated in these discussions on cottages for a significant length of time, i do not think there are very many left. and the traditional way that we have seen repeated on and on is that if the lot is deep enough and the structure is added in front, there is usually some type of interior courtyard, relatively small, and the cottage is in the rear predominantly in the setback and therefore is not exposed.

the permit holder here had the option of doing it that way, which probably was closer to what they would have liked, but he could have also expanded to the property line. i think that was a significant issue in relationship to the neighbors. the question of the variance is not before us. it was not appealed. it is their right to develop within the constraints of that variance. scale wise, you're talking about two stories. it is not overbearing. it is similar skill to the appellant of building and the other buildings. the setbacks do a lot, i think, to create visual corridors between the buildings.

i think there is a significant compromise given to the appellant. i do not think there is a formula for what makes good residential buildings. i am not sure that the department is perfect 100% of the time. i do not think it would propose that anyway. in this instance, i support i think what has occurred in a fairly long process that has created some compromises. i think it has created an interesting building. president peterson: i tend to concur with commissioner fung. appellant's council talked about compatibility with neighboring buildings. it is similar in scale to her own building.

i took issue with ideas about a licensed contractor. it was a relief to hear from mr. pierce and his representation of the licensed contractor who would be utilized. it is a fairly modest project. i see that there is no mid-block open space and other requirements. i too would be inclined to reject the appeal. i know we have the two permits to address. commissioner garcia: i would agree with president peterson and commissioner fung:. what was originally asked for by the residential design team was that the department take dr because of mid-block open space, which is surprising because there is no well-defined mid doc -- mid-block open space in this area. in a way, it is not compatible,

in that it does not look like every other house one generally runs across. but i think what this couple is able to do in their design and whoever else might be involved in this is to come up with something modest, thoughtful, and unique. i will probably make a point once this project is finished to pass by and look at how it looks in its finished form. it is not at all unusual. first of all, we cannot remand. i think you asked that we send this back to the planning commission. that is not in our power. but it is not that unusual for a planning commission to disagree with its staff or some recommendation it makes. it is not unusual for this body, the board of appeals, to disagree with the planning commission. however, in this particular case, i tend to agree with the planning commission, and i intend to uphold this permits. as to how best to deal with this, i hope the neighbors do not feel bullied.

i think over time, i would like to believe you are born to feel you have a pretty unique, nice house. i can assure you based on what we have seen here tonight you are going to have really nice neighbors. i am sure they are going to come to think that you are really nice also. i hope that part of the thing works itself out, because you are born to be neighbors. i do not know what we can do about the two permit process other than request that the board, i mean the planning department, do whatever they can to both expedite and ease the process as best i can administratively. commissioner fung: i believe we have no choice except to uphold the permit and one portion of the work related to one of the two structures. >> i have a suggestion. i do not know if it will work for dbi and laurence kornfield.

you have a process to add a condition to an existing permit. that does create a second bpa permit. it would be an internal process. >> thank you for your suggestion, but i do not believe that works in this case. that would just be a modification of this permit, and what we really need is a separate permit for the other structure. commissioner garcia: even though it would create a second bpa? >> that is correct. it is just modifying this permit. commissioner fung: if i was to think about the sequence, i would recommend this permit is to segregate the rear structure as part of this permit. do you want to respond to just that, please? >> this information came to us yesterday. this is really shocking to us.

we have been down this road. we thought we were at the end of it. and now we are looking at the possibility of a brand new permit, a brand new process. it is gut wrenching. if there is any possibility of being really creative about this within the law, because actually this thing, as mr. sanchez pointed out -- commissioner garcia: you can raise that up and be more comfortable. >> as mr. sanchez pointed out, the whole thing has been vetted by the planning department and we have been through this process. i feel like if there is any way to strip out the studio and just attach it to another piece of paper and close the window on the appeals for it if possible, then we will be good to go. commissioner fung: you are saying you would like to build the front portion? >> that is what i am saying. it is a very tight budget.

we do not have a lot of money to do this thing and we have a lot going on. all this green stuff is going to be expensive. the idea is to build the two structure simultaneously. without going into details, it will work out that way for us financially. not to mention the fact that there is a line item on the permit that says "studio," and it was given to us. and we paid for it. we paid for it. commissioner fung: i understand, but i think you are now going to have much of a choice. >> ok. i understand. commissioner fung: mr. kornfield and mr. sanchez, once a decision is made, are very helpful, but i believe they are indicating there is no other option. i am prepared to make the motion, but i need to know which portion of the building you want

on this permit. >> let us build the house. commissioner fung: then i am going to move that the permit be upheld and that the permit reflects the construction of the new structure in the front. president peterson: the permit reflects it? commissioner fung: excuse me. the gallery is in the front. the house is in the rear, the addition. vice president goh: just fyi, my intention is to vote against the motion. i am not sure if four votes would be needed. i hate to do this to commissioner hwang. commissioner fung: we have not voted yet. i am prepared to make the motion. i think i better explain to the audience that four votes are

required to put a condition. if one of the four does not vote on it at this point in time, what we do is we continue until we have a full toomroom of five. commissioner garcia: let me be clear. we are not -- i know they are going to have a problem with the fact that they need two permits. are we not allowed to just approve the project and have that be worked out at a future time, having been informed of the fact that they need to permit tax are we barred from upholding the -- having been informed of the fact that they need two permits, are we barred from of holding it? >> i would avoid this permit as

being issued incorrectly and they have to come back and get two new permits. that is probably not the strategy. commissioner garcia: it is not your fault. it is no one's fault possibly. the frustration of the project sponsors should be great because they have been through this whole process and are just learning this now. not only do they have to get a second permit and how bad be approved, but also have to face coming back here. we are going to have to continue this and we do not meet next week, so it will be two weeks before we get the next commissioner. it is not your fault, but it will be understandable if their level of frustration is pretty great at this time. president peterson: i have a question for the city attorney. we are not modifying. we are correcting the department here. >> unfortunately, you are removing an aspect of the work from the permit. you could hold a special meeting

next week on this one item to get this vote if you are concerned about timing. commissioner fung: the timing is impacted by the other permit. the other permit needs to be submitted. it runs a potential appeal. that is what is the critical path element. vice president goh: could they submit the second permit tomorrow and know that the studio in the front is on this permit? >> i do not think that we would be able to process the second permit when there is already one permit issued for the same work. it would be not appropriate, not possible. commissioner fung: depends how they it -- anyway. commissioner garcia: mr.

kornfield, we can assure this couple that the department will do everything in their power to expedite this, correct? >> absolutely. commissioner garcia: thank you. commissioner fung: you have indicated -- vice president goh: i am thinking, even though i would desperately like to go home -- here are the choices. what i would like to do is to vote against the motion, and doing so would take it to a time when commissioner hwang will be here, at which time she may or may not vote with the other commissioners. if she does, the proposal as suggested goes forward. if she does not, we are at the

same position we are today, where we are failing to overturn, we are failing to secure the four votes to put in a special condition, the permit will be upheld for a lack of the four votes, and mr. kornfield will be required to nullify the permit and require the permit holders to resubmit for two seperate permits. >> the ramification of that permit would be appealable back to you. vice president goh: is that right? commissioner fung: there is another option. they could file for a revision to remove parts of the building. commissioner garcia: but it seems as though -- i understand what your position is. i understand how you feel about it. but i think it is now a question of under ordinary circumstances,

or enough foa would be able to . i think your vote would have more to do with are we going to put people through more process for a principle, or are we going to waive that principle, as i did on the tree, in order to save the city process, save commissioner hwang from having to go through this, save this couple from having to go through this. the argument, rather than try to convince you this is a regional hubble project, would be in the instance of process and what is fair. i think it would be gracious if you were to change your broke. vice president goh: that is what i am thinking. the error was in fact from the city in not catching this some time earlier. and my not changing my vote just make that error compounded,

because it is clear the will of the board -- anyway, the three of you -- is going a certain way. i could change my vote and save the delay of the project. mr. kornfield and mr. sanchez have made clear that they would approve that second building. i am struggling. because if they are required to go back and get a separate permit for that second building, that permit would be appealable. commissioner fung: as with any revisions. vice president goh: any revisions? commissioner garcia: there is more process that are going to have to go through. we are just trying to save them one step, which would be to come back here so that a missing commissioner could vote. vice president goh: i thought we

were saving the appeal for the revision. a revision of dividing these two permits would be appealable? president peterson: i do not think a revision is going to get to the end result necessary. i think another permit me to get -- needs to get requested. if the board wants to allow part of the project to move forward, it needs to conditions permit by removing the scope of work for one of the two structures, and a second permit would need to be applied for for the other structure. commissioner fung: mr. kornfield understand what i am saying. my idea of a revision is not to create two permits all of this. it is to reduce the scope of work on one permit, which means you could reduce it to the point of -- >> alone to go forward. allowing it -- allowing it to go

forward. vice president goh: i am not following. commissioner fung: they could file a revision to this one which would take off one of the buildings. vice president goh: that was your motion. commissioner fung: or they can submit to another process. but my motion was not going to carry. vice president goh: i think with all that said, i am disinclined to change my vote then. am i missing something? i may be. i am not feeling well, because it is very light. commissioner fung: it is about reducing part of the process for all of the people in this room, a -- including the appellant. their capability of appealing occurs on the second permit. vice president goh: i see. the