remover -- removal should fall squarely on the shoulders of the permit holder. i ask the board to place the responsibility of any wild life removal to be tasked to the permit holder. i will now move on to discuss my concerns with regard to the new construction. the street facing back. -- deck. the proposed plan shows a street facing deck that would allow out events a view directly down into my home. i have the photos to show you the proximity of are two buildings. -- of our two buildings. >> the other way. >> ok, thank you. this is 43 miramar and that picture was taken from my front window.

and this is my front window from 42 miramar. it is hard to see in this picture because of the reflection in the middle window, and it is just hard to see in general, but if you look closely, you can make out my toddler's basketball hoop that he likes to play with in the window. it is easily seen into from the street. and never mind at night when the lights are on in the home. i also hold firm in my belief that the street facing deck will introduce additional street noise. the permit holder says i'm overreaching because we cannot speculate on future occupants causing public nuisance. however, this is based in reality and experience. everyone talks about community and keeping a great community and the need to keep our city great and the need to fight for it. in my entire pregnancy and the

first four months of my son's life, those were spent with my husband and i alternately calling the police because of kids partying at all hours of the day and night. this would leave us no sanity from what is going on behind us and now in front of us. in addition, the deck is not in keeping with the accident character of the neighborhood. there are no homes with 300 square foot street-facing decks and for several blocks around there are zero front decks. i would like the following question answered. how is it that a 300 square foot rooftop street facing deck is in keeping with the spirit and character of the neighborhood. i urge you to order the removal of that deck. this would make an immediate the

positive neighborhood impact and bring it into the character of the neighborhood and the remaining quality of life. i also feel the house is out of character with the other homes in the neighborhood. there are no homes in our neighborhood with three stories of building space and no homes with 40 ft. height. the proposed design is cookie cutter and does not live up to the character and charm of the neighborhood. i would like you to see pictures of homes located north and south of this location. you can take a look at the height of the existing homes and what they look like. this is 42. and then we head north. and then further north. and then back again at 42.

and heading south. heading south again. and you are able to see that these homes are all similar height. none of them have any front- facing decks. this is across the street from 42 miramar. this is my home, no. 35. and this is going south. this is heading north. no. still. and finally, no. again. and as i said, none of these homes have three stories of living space, and none of them have any front facing? . -- front facing decks. i do question how the home fits in with the character and features. the additional parking -- the

proposed structure is a 4- bedroom home and there is concerned only having eight to car garage. the one car garage was actually turned into a two-card tandem garage by only adding 3 ft. of space, not sure how that is adequate. it does not seem right to me, so -- but i'm only a they%. it seemed odd to me. miramar is highly congested. i would like to distribute some pictures so you can see what is typically like trying to park on our street. miramar and at the top of the hill. i took a picture at the top of the hill. you can see there are cars either way all the way down. and this is an example of

someone blocking our driveway on the sidewalk -- sidewalk. another example of someone blocking the sidewalk. another example. and someone actually parking in front of a driveway here. and here is an example of a car that is double parked in the street. i ask that you order a revision to the plant to account for one additional parking space. additionally, upon further review of the plans, its seems that they are incomplete. i do not think that maybe should have been approved in the first place. the third floors facing st. --

the third floor facing the street deck, i do not think that should have been approved. i do not know if you can see it that well from there. oh, you have it on your martyrs. -- your monitors. it is missing a deck here. and it is missing a deck here in the right elevation view. and again here and decide section. and lastly here at the left elevation of view. do you want me to keep that up at all? ok, thank you. it does not seem from the permit holders brief that this is a home that he will be living in. and in fact, when addressing my

concerns about the use of the jack and the street noise from the jack, the permit holder list of the possibility of this becoming a rental. he never denies the structure could be used in this way. as an aside, the position of the kitchen on the second floor actually makes it simple to drop pipes down and above to convert after final inspection. it just seems like there has been some breach in protocol by approving incomplete plans, by not appropriately of communicating the process, by confusing the communication, by not following up on communications with neighbors, by not setting expectations with us, and mohsen brenden, not notify residents of the discretionary review for construction on december 8th,

2012 for us to voice our concerns. the project sponsor has shown through words and actions that they are not concerned with the neighbors and preserving our quality of life and the charm of the neighborhood. that is our problem. they're not concerned about thoughtfully removing wildlife. that is our problem. they're not concerned with collaborating. that is our problem. they're not concerned with who lives in this house after it is built. that is our problem. they are so obviously not concerned about becoming part of our community, and as such, should be far more amenable to collaboration to develop a structure we can all be proud of. we are the ones who will experience the lasting effect of the project approved to come. this is now in your hands. i urge you to grant the appeals. these appeals should be granted. this project should be opened up again for discretionary review.

and the fact that the plans are incomplete and no notice was given to the neighbors, and because of how utterly fraught with confusion this project has been. i sincerely thank you for your time. gregg's you said december, 2012 -- >> december, 2012? >> december 8th, 2012. >> not 2012. >> i'm sorry, 2011. >> the last year that pdr record. >> yes. -- that the d.r. occurred. >> yes. >> we can hear from the permit holder now. >> president huang, do you wish to give the permit holder 14 as well? >> we have to, yes.

you do not have to use them all, but that is your time allotment. seven minutes per appeal. >> thank you. good evening. i represent the permit holder tonight. as you heard, the cases before you are linked with the demolition and the replacement of a single-family dwelling. based on the appellants brief, it is my understanding that her issues are not actually with th. it is more with the process of the demolition and how that takes place. unfortunately, most of the concerns that she has raised are governed by local laws, building codes, regulations. they made no attempt to reach out to us.

perhaps there has been some breakdown in communication. we feel there has been a breakdown in communication as well. but we are open. we are willing and able to cooperate and walk them through the process, to explain it to them. we're willing to accept limitations on hours of construction. my client has asked for monday through saturday, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., which is less than what is allowed by the permit. most of the hazardous material concerns that they raise are governed by regulations from the air quality management district, regulated by the building code, regulated by the pain disturbance and them -- and removal. all of these things that they're raising on the demolition issues are really maybe just a lack of

understanding on their part because they have not been through this process. we are happy to work with them. i hope that by now they do know how to reach us. we've had quite a bit of the email in back and forth with the appellant. we have a letter from a neighbor, suzann dumont and we have to mitigated hurt -- with her through e-mail and telephone. -- and we have communicated with her through e-mail and telephone. we're not just trying to ram this down their throats. but movie on the issue of the -- moving onto the issue of the replacement structure, which is the real concern, i believe this is pretty modest. it is still within the allowed

envelope. yes, we are adding a third story, but it covers roughly 50% of the building footprint. and it is set back from the property line in the front by 30 ft.. in addition, the overall height of the building is 30 ft. in a 40-foot district. i do not think this is extreme. yes, it is a bit larger than the majority of the buildings in this neighborhood, but it is not unprecedented, i believe. and the extremes that back at the front -- the extreme set back at the front is really to mitigate the impact of the third story. and regarding issues such as privacy, i have to say, there are no immediate windows across the street. it is a dense city.

i cannot see that as a real infringement on her privacy. we feel strongly that the proposed building is a fair and reasonable building. we added a second parking space in response to the d.r. that was filed. and i think requiring a third parking space would be really an exceptional and unwarranted. well beyond what is required by the zoning. i also want to remind this board that there was a d.r. hearing held in december. it was noticed twice because of the file and it has time had

elapsed and because changes had been made to the plans. the planning department noticed it a second time. not one person showed up to the hearing. i do not know how that happened. in my conversations with the planner, he indicated to me that the neighbors had indicated they were satisfied with the changes that the project sponsor had made. and they were not going to pursue the d.r., although, they did not follow through to actually submit the paperwork to withdraw the d.r. hearing and that is why we have that hearing. i do not understand why all of these people are here now when there was ample opportunity through the process, through the hearing that was noticed twice to raise these concerns. these are issues that we had, quite frankly, thought we resolved with them. it is a little shocking to be here today facing these issues again and to be accused of not cooperating and not

communicating and not being available. we feel we have been available they have -- and they have had the means to contact us. i would like to reiterate one final time that we are open to communication and open to working with the neighbors. however, we feel we have already given on the issue of parking and that the third story is well within the zoning and that the building is set back 30 ft. and is half the building footprint. it is pretty modest. i am available for questions. >> the appellant has indicated she has received no notice. she has lived there since 2008. is that a question better for the planning department? gregg's perhaps, yes. and i should clarify that we only became it -- became involved in this project at the point leading up to the actual d.r. hearing. we were not involved with the

initial design or the project design. my personal history does not go back that far. it goes back to the fall of 2011. >> could you walk us through the timeline of the project? it has been a long time that the project has been in the works. if you know it. >> again, as i take my was not involved initially. but it is my anders standing that the permit applications were dated 2005. i know that a d.r. was filed. i certainly read it and responded to it in my package to the planning department. the concerns were pretty much the size of the building, the fact that the neighbors felt it was out of character because it had a third story and a roof deck and because of its size it needed more parking.

the project sponsor had already made those modifications that he was willing to make by the time we were hired. and based on my communication with the planner he had indicated they were satisfied. we prepared our package for the d.r. hearing and we showed up. not one single person showed up to support the d.r. and all of the commissioners that were present voted to approve the project. and then of course, it has been appealed and we are here tonight. >> i have a question on the issues raised by the appellant regarding the plans and the disorder of an anomaly -- of the

sort of an anomaly. the decks were not indicated on those plans? >> when i see the plans, i see those indicated. >> i think the one that was put on a2.1. >> right, on the allegations. i see it there as well at the front -- right, on the elevations. i see it there as well on the front para atwal. -- parapet wall. >> can you show us what you're talking about? >> sure. right now, we're looking at elevation three. this is the right side

elevation. i believe this is the front deck right here. it what you're seeing is basically a parapet wall at the property line. perhaps that is why they do not think they see a deck. >> i think that is exactly why. >> and on the backside you can see it as well. on the left side, it is the same thing. that would be the front of the building their that my pen is pointing to. it is just a continuation of the parapet. when i look at these plans, i do see the deck. >> where is it in relation to the front property line? >> at the front of the building, it is set back 15 ft. to match the pattern of the neighborhood. the front deck extends to the

front of the building and it goes between the front of the building right here to the beginning of the towards story. >> just like the building it sits 15 ft. back from the property line. gregg's you indicated there have been communications between yourself and the appellant. >> there has been since the appeal was filed. >> has there been information provided in terms of the issues of the neighborlyness that the 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.