would condition it with a six- foot either lattice or firewall. >> one last point. mr. duffy asked me to respectfully suggest that on the plan, the deck beat labeled as not for occupancy -- be labeled as not for occupancy. >> thank you. >> that is my motion. >> i want to be clear i understand this. to grant the appeal and issue the permit on several conditions. the dimensions of the structure be consistent with the previously as built dimensions. and is it a separate condition that the depth be no more than 2 feet, 6 inches from the rear of the building wall? >> that is part of the first condition. >> ok.

then i am not clear as to what the second -- >> the second planning condition is that the railing be to the maximum extent possible open as per the planning code. >> you're adding a condition of a six-foot lettuce or firewall -- lattice or firewall. >> ok, when you are ready.

>> we have a motion from the vice-president to grant this appeal, uphold the permit with several conditions. the first condition was that the depth of the structure represents the as built conditions. and the railing be open to the extent -- maximum extent possible. that a six-foot privacy wall -- or did you say firewall? >> a six-foot privacy wall or -- lattice or firewall.

>> that would be erected at the property line adjoining the appellant. >> would that be necessary if i removed the railing entirely? isn't that what's the objection of the appellant is? >> ok. why don't you come to the podium and make a proposal. that is what you are saying. we have heard what you do not prefer to happen. we have come up with a decision and your interjecting yourself in the middle of the process. >> i appreciate you say that. if there is a railing on the balcony, you would like there to be a wall that goes up 6 feet or a lattice on top of the existing firewall. if i choose to just remove the railing which is part of the

objection of the kwoks, could i also have the option of not having any railing or wall? >> yes. >> i just wanted to add that compounded into your description. >> the condition would be to either install a six-foot privacy wall or lattice or firewall or have no railing. >> yes. >> i wanted to make sure we have had a lot from the permit holder. i have not heard responses from the appellant and i want to make sure that the appellants are following what is going on here. if you could come to the podium, i want to make sure that you understand what we were talking about. >> thank you. my understanding is the board proposed to build a six-foot

privacy wall so he can keep his balcony. is that right? >> that is one of the conditions. dr. berman stated he would like to choose the option of removing rails all together so no privacy what would be there. >> no railing and no wall. >> just a platform. the balcony is a horizontal several pieces of wood. >> the depth would be reduced to comply with the planning code. >> i want to make sure you understand what we're doing here. one of the things we're trying to do is address the needs of -- that you have raised as well as

insurance that -- as ensure that dr. berman can have his balcony. >> no one can stand on that platform? >> the plan would be marked no occupancy so people are not supposed to be on it. and one of the things that dr. berman stated was that he would like the option and he is entitled to this to have no railings and if there is no railings, there will be no privacy wall. a wide to be clear that is a condition that makes sense for you and your privacy concerns. do you understand? >> yes. >> is that acceptable? does that address the privacy concerns? >> yes. thank you. >> i am concerned about having a condition that says we need to make sure this is the dimension

as the previously as-built since we have heard from the departments they may not be able to assess what that is and i wonder if you would be willing to simply stated needs to be a certain dimension. >> two foot six as per their plan. >> thank you. >> we will try it again. motion from the vice-president to grant this appeal to pull the apartment with the following conditions, that part one death of structure not to exceed 2 ft. 6 in. at the railing wall, that there really be open to the maximum extent possible to the planning code. part 3, either a six-foot privacy wall, latticed, or firewall on the structure

adjacent to the appellant property line, or elimination of the railing on the link to the adjacent to the property line, to the appellant's property line. >> no, it would be elimination of all railing and firewall. >> for the entire structure. elimination of all railing for entire structure. >> right. is that clear to the building department? >> sorry, commissioners. when you're going from the foundation of 2 3 ft. 6 in.. i do not think that is what we need -- going up to 3 ft. 6 in.. i do not think that is what we need.

>> since we are going back to theadd-build condition than the fire wall is now required. firewall or lattice. >> so either six-foot privacy wall, lattice, or privacy wall, or elimination of all railings for the entire structure. and the last condition, the approved plan shall be stamped "no occupancy." on that motion of the vice- president to approve all those camp -- conditions. president on aye. commissioner hillis: aye. commissioner fung: aye. commissioner hurtado: aye. >> the commission has approved it with all those items.

>> this is the appeal number in 12-052 and 053. the subject property is at 42 merah mar ave. protesting the issuance on april 9th, 2012, a permit to demolish a building and a permit to erect a building. it is the demolition of a one story family dwelling and the construction is a three-story single-family dwelling. we will start with the appellant. because you have filed two appeals, you have 14 minutes. >> thank you. good evening, hon. commission. i am incredibly nervous. i hope i do not blow this. i want to thank you for hearing them -- hearing this issue today. and i wanted to get new -- thank

anyone for their assistance in this matter. i reside directly across the street from #42. i'm here to ask that you grant the plan for demolition to be issued and that conditions be placed on the new construction. in their response brief, the permit holder has accused me of simultaneously being ignorant of the law and the planning process, as well as a primary example of the the abuser of the process that presumably know nothing about. the engineers representing the permit holder against me admittedly not, but this process exists for people like me. especially in this case, where there has been so much confusion around this project, which had its inception in 2004 -- or 2005. i moved 35miramar avenue two weeks before my husband and i were married in 2008. three years after the initial

discretionary review had been filed. this explains to the permit holder why i was not one of the original signatories on the work. once i moved in, in 2008 and i was never invited to a single neighborhood planning meeting. i was never invited to a single meeting before permits were filed. and i was never notified of the discretionary review for construction. in fact, many neighbors did not receive a hearing of the notification of the hearing -- did now receive notification of the hearing in december. this is why we are here today. this process is here for us to have a voice. with regard to my appeal of demolition no. 12-052, i ask that a demolition plan the given to the neighborhood. i am understand this must be addressed through established process, please code, etc.

however, while permitted start time 7:00 a.m., vehicles and crew often arrive 50 to 30 minutes early so they can be ready to start right at 7:00 a.m. there is a nurse -- a noise disturbances, which could be addressed by the permit holder. additionally, demolition and construction traffic are things that a project sponsor could offer in spirit of being a good neighbor. for example, we will not start before 8:00 a.m. or we will only work monday through friday, or we will take a break during the days of the kids who need sleep can do that. the demolition is not to be -- to take more than a few hours with the nab a day or two later. this is the type of thing i am requesting. it takes a mere moments to convey scheduling details like this and are greatly appreciated by the neighborhood. i also requested an action plan for removal and placement of

wildlife. the permit holder believes the onus is on me to perform due diligence. i disagree. the responsibility of wildlife 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 r.