did not apply to signs legal before the passage of the proposition. >> the rationale is? >> the rationale is that it was part of the amendment in 2006. let me read through what was said. the owner is allowed to use their properties. that does not mean this is not a new sign, this is an existing sign. they are applying to put up a replacement sign that is legal and permitted. >> thank you.

>> i am not here on behalf of anyone and i was not intending to speak. >> comments, commissioners. >> i could not agree more with most of the comments made by the appellate and i could not disagree more with the comments made by planning. i think we just opened up the idea and this had to do with the signs that are not new and the city attorney went to miriam

webster and decided that a reasonable definition is one that is adding to the number of signs and this would be reasonable to consider this a replacement. i have never agreed with the way that the voluntary is treated. the right that someone has is a right to display an outdoor sign. i think that whoever owns the sign is irrelevant. who actually owns that sign and what the proffered to write off is an this hopefully protected by the fifth amendment which is the right to display the advertising sign. to start with built by planning and it was voluntary because the appellate has this action, all

the appellant has done -- we are able to negotiate a contract that is more valuable than what cbs is paying me and therefore want to enter into this new resourced. they spent over $100,000 trying to defeat the idea that it was a voluntary action on the part of the appellant. they were voluntarily asking that the sign be removed but not deciding that they want to relinquish the right to display this outdoor advertising sign. this is removed by order of the accord. i feel a reasonable argument

could be made when we talk about the sign can be removed. the calamity is that you're getting an income of 700 year for something that is worth 18,000. this is something beyond the control of that party. this was beyond control of the appellant that the sign be removed. i think this raises the issue that there should be an upper senate seat to replace. what you want your government to do is for them to be a shield to

protect you, not a sword to come after you. right now, there is debate going on about whether or not how we should deal with some serious financial problems. there is a whole body of thought that celeste's apply this to the economics. there is this whole other side that might be called libertarian or tea party types. they would like to give businesses the opportunity to take this out of this problem. the irony is that it is the government that is attacking the rights of the individual and

taking away what i think is a right. the irony is that the killer of this whole deal and i think that some people care about this as strongly as i do. i think it is poorly written. to stick with the rights from the property owner and transferred to an outside sign company, even if that is the case, it is hard to say that is anything but reasonable. the fact that the sign is not compliant, i don't see that we can accept that.

we are to explore all of those rights. this time cannot be put back there because it would be non compliant. >> in reviewing the savings which we will put together, i did come to the same conclusion as the planning department and i appreciate the comments and testimony and the argument that you put before me today. i don't share the view with vice president garcia in regards to property rights. i believe that this was passed

by a wide margin by the public, the people of san francisco. i think that there is an irony here and in many cases where you have these major corporations squeezing the small guy. this is tough from that perspective. on the reading of it, i don't think we have a lot of wiggle room. >> this case is difficult. this is quite compelling. it goes through the point by

which the appellant is not comply. there is the issue of knowing about the application and its subsequent removal. also the issue as required by law and the order from the court which plays into that particular statement. on the other hand -- i am in concurrence. contrary to this is the question not so much for the property rights but to the issue

is as we interpret the specific language of a policy and we are not able to redefine that policy so much as trying to interpret it to some degree. we then need to go beyond just a letter of the briefs, the letters of those actions and see if it was really voluntarily done and to what extent -- played into this issue. it really bothers me the monopolistic approach and attitude of this country -- company.

at this board, we are faced with not only trying to interpret the policy but also the implementation of the enforcement. in this thing together case, i will have to go with the department. this does not make me feel good to play into the hands of a company that has a monopoly. i have a growing concern as these cases come before us about the voluntary nature with other cases where the owners

claim that these were forged. i don't feel comfortable uphold in a series of conduct that is very concerning, so i respect the opinions of my fellow commissioners but i would be inclined to side in this case and others with the owner. >> i agree with those who say that we should support the department, is there a conclusion? >> for the record, proposition g notified at 611. this is a planning code.

this comes along because of actions by this board having to do with the determination that a permit those with the land, that would cause this. this is not was done by the voters. to say that they have set this situation, i think it is a tragedy and a city should deal with that and the fact that they have traded an incredibly unfair business situation.

>> i would not make a motion. "i will move to uphold the department. >> i will be voting against it because i will vote for a motion cannot be done because this is not in compliance but i will not vote on something based upon a finding that has to do with the approach.

>> a friendly amendment to add. >> this is a non complying use and a non compliant structure. >> i did not hear that. >> the motion is to deny the appeal and uphold the the mile with the findings of this line is not compliant. >> will also based this on the department's brief and finding in their letter.

>> on the basis of that listed in the denial letter and brief. on that motion -- >> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> no. >> the boat is 3-2. the appeal is denied. the department's denial is upheld on that basis. >> thank you.

>> we are resuming the meeting. we are calling appeal number 8. the property is at 42 days street, this appeals the denial of the permit to alter a building, remodeling of a two- story single-family we are on for hearing today. you will hear from the apellant first.

>> good evening. hello. good evening. my name is jean and next to me is my husband. i'm a graphic artist and i divide my time between teaching at the california college of the arts and creating my art at my home. our two children live with us. my home is not a place where i sell my art and i, like john,

enjoy working from home. it gives us a chance to be with our kids more. it has been essential to the way we parent. and saves me the expense of renting a work space. that i could on the use part time due to my teaching duties. as you likely know, john, my husband, has not gone into the lucrative private practice. most of his medical student colleagues have. and works for the federal employee of the v.a. hospital and teaches medicine as well. for us, buying a large home as never been a realistic financial option. i think you have seen the letters my parents have submitted to you. they already visit a great deal

and look forward to the time when they can move in with us if we can get permits for more space. i want to thank all of my neighbor who is have come to support us and coming here tonight. i would like to introduce our attorney. thank you. >> good evening. there is an existing photo of the building as it exists today. i wanted to thank everybody. there is about 20 people here who came to speak, but we are asking them to keep their speeches to two minutes or less and i wanted to thank them all. first, john and jean were very disappointed in the planning staff recommendations because they did make eight of the nine or 10 changes staff wanted and it was surprising that the staff and not a neighbor would d.r. the project. there are portions that planning thinks are excessive.

let's start with those. the staircase, a doughnut hole in the middle of a staircase is making it grandiose. it is the home of a future wheelchair accessible elevator once jean's parents move in and stairs become inaccessible. they believe the third floor deck is larger than needed and the two light rails should be put in the center of the building. the solution was to -- space that's on the third floor brings in light and heat into the interior rooms, provides some shelter and a neighbor asked that there be no stairs to the roof because of its height and the roof deck was eliminated and this takes its place.

that makes this open space very important. i heard it asked why two parents cannot share one work space. graphics are certainly a noisy showing produce. the overhead drawing shows that john and jean would lose a bedroom. the next one, the planning department requires 15-foot setback be done. why? because the former two bedrooms here would have to be reconfigured. this building would be under 70 square feet. one bedroom wall must be seven feet under the housing code and this room, one bedroom wall would have to be seven feet under the planning code. as a result, these two would be merged and what we have is two teenage kids of different sexes

losing their privacy and there is nothing more important to any age than people -- teenage -- teenagers to have their privacy, boy and girls especially at that age. it results in a lossor a laundry room which is important to them and reduces the size of a bedroom. it is already small enough that nothing but a bed can fit in it. also they ask why the second floor of the living room has a double height space next to the open space, and that's simply because the living room has no natural light given it is the middle of the existing building. as for guidelines, you know, as i have said in my brief, the guidelines call themselves recommendations and suggestions. since design is inherently very

circumstantial, subjective and reflect differing contexts, the -- as i mentioned different contexts i think are what made the drafters make it flexible. the case before you is a very unusual context. it is a factual context in which reasonable people have entered into an agreement that there is a tradeoff to be made here, namely the neighbors are concerned that -- be improved -- were the open space important to them and asked that it is done on the top. to do it is more expensive to lean on an additional building but it is something good neighbors do for good neighbors and these neighbors have always gotten along. the 15-foot setback i think would create a i.p.o.ive from the neighborhood that -- a point of view from the neighborhood that they should really think

twice before they add an additional story to. there are two stories. half the buildings don't have a third story. many people are looking at this in the future on this block. there are no burdens to the neighborhood going along with what our clients want. the objective shadow standing findings that mark macy, the architect is doing, something that planning only speculates on. it shows no shadowing. thank you very much. >> good evening again. dan, department staff. as mr. gladstone has indicated,

this project would add a third story to an existing two-story building bringing the total square feet up to 3600 square feet. the planning commission did review this project as a mandatory staff discretionary review and they did exercise their discretionary powers and required two changes in order toa assure the project adhere to the long standing residential design guidelines. the first change i made in keeping with the r.d.g. was that exposed, rather that the exposed upper level, the top story, the front of the building beset back by 15 feet. this figure is universally complide throughout the city to expose upper stories. the commission applied that to this case as it has many other instances. the second change the commissioner required to make sure that the projected a theered the residential design

guidelines was a rear setback of four feet. this four-foot level brings its along with the proposed top level addition to the average point between two adjacent properties. with these two changes the department if he would felt that the project was compliant with the guidelines and they did approve it. now again as mr. gladstone has said there is a good deal of support for the project in the neighborhood and that is indeed a rarity and that's great. we love that. but the implementation of the planning code is not a matter of popularity. the rules must and do apply evenly to everyone and we can't wait for a particular project and not others because of a particular neighborhood or particular area feel something is preferable. the drentsrble design guidelines have been cod find for more than

a decade. the commission's decision was consistency with the guidelines. -- consistent with the guidelines. stepping back for a second, getting off my residential design soapbox. mr. glad if stone identified a number of particular -- for his client listed on page two of his brief. the three i think are most important are the spatial goals. firstly, desiring a room for their in-laws to move in with them. secondly, they desire a home office space and thirdly a separate home/studio. these are the three key spatial goals for this project. i would like to put the top floor design of the project as proposed on the overhead.

this is a gracious, spacious floor plan. it is inefficient. very inefficient. and for that reason, it is also full of opportunity. i would like to point out this space here, this is a two-story space over the second level living area. this space directly adjacent to it is sort of a wall, patio that mr. gladstone spoke about. if you add in the void in the middle of the stairs which may or may not be part of the project's goals, that is an