>> 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>> we are returning ts 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 the d.r. is no longer valid. only because of the old plan. the d.r. has no more value so you have to withdraw. i do not have time to send you a letter about that but please talk to that neighborhood. >> which one was that? >> the height of the building. we are satisfied with the recession of the depth. and satisfied with parking. it seems like the never have some other concerns but we are not satisfied with the height. >> thank you. president hwang: next speaker,

please. kraska evening. -- good evening. i enjoy the neighborhood and i really like them to take down the old house. the reason i want to object is i do not like they put a plea? at. if they put up the 8 feet, i have to close my window. i work the whole day and night and i have no fresh air. number two, -- [unintelligible]

for complaint. you scare me. number three, i talked to my friend. he is the architect. i saw him -- he said this is so stupid. never get the permit to build the new building. [unintelligible] thank you. >> good evening. i am honored to address year. i watch you on tv and commissioner fung, you are in favor. i do not always agree but i love hearing how you and tie the together. unti -- untie the pieces and put

them back together. before i bid on the house and while it was in escrow i did a lot of research about the property next door because -- i will show you a picture. what i saw -- that is what i saw when i came to the property. it was not until the came back the second time that i noticed this fire and i was scared to walk in your bid -- the yard because it was full of construction debris and trash and had been that way for a long time. i had a friend with me was brave enough to walk over and he could barely read that it said 2005 on it. i thought, ok. that is years ago. a lot has happened since then. i called dbi and must be a black hole between the agencies or something because i spoke to in specter -- inspector mather.

he thought the owner had died or had been killed -- been ill. he was sending notices and not getting any response. i thought, i am glad to know he is not dead. i do not know who the owner is and i am confused. the tax records told me one thing and i'm hearing something else. i took it upon myself to write the owner that was on the tax records. it was mr. kwan. i wrote to introduce myself as the new neighbor. i feel strongly about small houses being good, affordable housing but i am not opposed to this one. you would understand why. i am very much opposed to the deck on the front. it is a 330 square foot deck. on the street where there are

no? on the front at all. i'm going to be right next door and i am coming late to this game but i am -- i try -- tried to do do diligence. here is the bizarre thing. i want to add when i went online to look at permits for the property, there were none until recently when i saw some had been added that said suspended because of this appeal. i feel like there is some black hole in dbi because inspector matter knew nothing about any open permits and he thought the owner was dead or ill. thank you. president hwang: is there any other public comment? seeing none, we will look into rebuttal and we will start with the appellant. >> it is six minutes.

>> i am happy to hear the apartment holder is willing to work with us on the hours. i think that is great. i think that is great to have that opportunity available and i appreciate it very much. thank you. hopefully i can get to it. there was a comment made that there was some communication during this appeal set up. at that time i had made no attempt to contact the permit holder to try to stop this from happening or to work on the issues before. on the letter to the permit holder about appeals being filed, it states clearly the board in per -- encourages permit holders to me with the appellant to clarify project plans. i am not sure why they onus is

put on the appellant or the neighbors. when we were looking at the plan of the front deck, she believes this is the front deck. if she believes -- you either know it is the front deck or it is not. it is not what you believe. if i am taking another look, i want to know where it is on the side section. it looks like the roof to me. i do not know much about plans. maybe somebody else can clarify it. when she gets appear. -- up here. let's see. as far as privacy issues, we know we live in close proximity to one another. i do not know how that is not taken into consideration. the noise concerns are still

there. i mentioned how we had to do with neighbors behind us. screaming and doing their kegs. they were 100 feet away from us and we were sitting with ear plugs which did not help with the bass, but is still a valid point. lastly, i am confused about how it is that because i was not part of the original d.r. and was not one of the signatories and allowed to see some plans but i am not allowed to get notification of the d.r. because i do not live directly across the street. i think that is not cool. i think people should have the right to see that stuff and you see all the people that are here today and that would have been there if we had known about it.

confusion high, communication low. i hope that you will find in favor of us and please consider this. thank you. vice president fung: you received notice of the proposal with the current drawing in july of last year. >> i did. vice president fung: but no response to that? >> my neighbor. vice president fung: i met you. you did not respond. >> i did not respond. if you want an explanation, i do not know. do you want an explanation? vice president fung: if you like. >> my husband, his uncle had passed away. i was a little bit preoccupied. my neighbor had responded so we assumed another set of plans would be forthcoming that we could take a look at.

the other thing was if there was not any discretionary review and the neighbors were requesting another d.r., i do not understand how hearing took place. why was there even a d.r. hearing if nothing had been filed? vice president fung: i can answer that. the d.r. is either by request by outside appellants for it is filed by the department itself. >> they would not send out notification? vice president fung: the notification requirements are the same. >> they would have to send out. it is not correct we did not receive notification? >> you would not receive notification. the same rules apply. >> i do not see how that -- do you know what i mean? at some point, that is the policy made by the city that they file a 311 notification to a broader neighborhood group and

that d.r. gets narrower. >> someone across the street did not received notification, either. i do not know what happened there. >vice president fung: she did not respond. >> of the hearing in december? vice president fung: do have a question? >> no. president hwang: i hear a tremendous amount of frustration and i am deeply sorry for that. it is not our intention. we really do want to work with these folks but we do feel our project is fair. i know that since my involvement, the project went through 311 a second time. i was involved in coordinating fell label