youth soccer coach and president, and i have also put in enormous amounts of time and energy at the children's schools. as the family grows up more needs changes, more bathroom and over all space is needed. this is san francisco. and the kids come home, after college. as represents are too high when they want to get started in the real world. they are now and ready to do the work and make an significant financial

investment in the project. this is within the guidelines and no variances and it is code compliant and it will allow the family to stay in the city, and improve basic housing stock in san francisco. >> i urge you to support the planning commission's decision. thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any other public comment? >> okay, seeing none, then we will have rebuttal starting with miss smith and you have three minutes. >> okay. >> smith if you could wait one minute, we are going to take a pause. one-minute break. one minute.

>> my lot is 125 feet deep and not 9 deep feet as are the miller and so i really don't extend into the open space. more than the laytons do. and because my lot is much longer. and as far as the fence went, and when we all have fences in san francisco. and if we didn't have a fence, everybody in the neighborhood would have my dogs running through their yards which i am sure that they would not appreciate. and the reason the layton house is much smaller than mine is because they have a peeked roof and i have one of the first house on the block and so my home is older but has been kept

up. and yes i have a larger house but i do not extend especially if you can see this is what the project overhead. what the project would be. and you can't even see my home behind that. if my home sticks out that far. you can see the roof because we are on a grade so my home is taller than theirs, but as far extending out to the back it isn't right. you can see on this what will happen with the big extension and that is their part, and oh, i am sorry. and that is the yard that will be lost, and this is my yard. i extend all the way into the inner part and yes, there are two sheds back there that are only one story high, and let's

see. the bay window which is supposedly was eliminateds that been changed into a window seat. so that extension on the house, is still there. and this is just another deception that their architect has tried to put in. and you will note that anyone who spoke on their side does not live on our block. you will find no one living on our block who will support this project. i think that is very important. and as it is now, we are a community back there. and we can communicate from the back porches, and this is a community that the laytons have not partaken in at all. i am sure that they don't know the neighbors, well they know patty because they have the dogs in the back but they don't know, i am sure not knowing helen and she is on that block.

they are not part of our community. and i have encouraged many, many times over the years to have them repair and eliminate the wood beetle which is within their under pinings of their home, my contractor showed them this. over ten years ago. when i put my swimming pool in in the bathroom in. and the attitude was, oh, well. and now all of a sudden we are faced with this immense intrusive and invasive structure. >> your time is up. >> the project to be scaled back. to what was originally quoted to me which was a squaring of from the sun room as it stands over to the south wall. >> excuse me. >> your time is up. >> thank you. >> okay, we can hear from the other appellants now.

>> miss mckency? >> mr. miller? >> good evening. i am ken miller and i am one of the discretionary review applicants my wife and i leave at 1266th avenue. i would like to answer to some of the things that were brought up by the layton's attorney tonight and that are also pret where much verbatim from his brief that was submitted to you and there is a lot of stuff that is just not true here. some of it has been said, already. but smith was not represented by our lawyer, and our architect as in this brief, she was not, she was not a member of the drteam, this is really

important. and this is huge. not just because she was not heard. at the dr hearing, she was not heard and, she was shut down. but the fact is that there was so much confusion at the time that it cut into our time, we did not and we were not able to present our case and we were not heard. and that is really the crux of what i want to communicate to you guys tonight. is it is a much higher bar, we start to present our pictures in their plans and everything else to the board of appeals and i should not be here. this should have been heard at the planning commission this is a much heavier lift we have to get four out of five votes, i want to present this before the planning commission and we did not have the opportunity to do that because of a huge procedural error. and today, i finally got a call back and i had been trying to get a hold of mr. sanchez. to clarify that smith was not a part of the dr team.

and i did get a call back from somebody in his office and i can't remember his name. mr. sanchez you can fill me in and i also got a e-mail from mr. sanchez saying that there are rules about the dr hearing. and there are rules and that we have to go by the rules and so i we want on-line and i downloaded the rules and i have them right here when i didn't see anything in those rules that say that if someone is mentioned in a dr hearing and if someone is referenced in a dr application that they are part of the dr team and i pointed this out to the gentleman who called me and he kept going around saying well we inferred that she was. we inferred that she was, because she was mentioned. three or four times. well, you know, everybody is mentioned there. because so many neighbors are against this project. and she was mentioned because she is somebody who we care about deeply and, we wanted to help with this situation. and so we mentioned her and we wanted to give her all of the

help that can he could and she is not part of the dr application. she is not and, her signature is not on the application and she did not pay a fee, so this is a major error on the part of the planning. and i, i request that we have our day, before the planning commission. to finally be able to present all of this material to them. i appreciate your interest, thank you very much. >> i have a question. >> sure. >> are you saying that you had no opportunity to be heard before the planning commission? >> it was... >> whatsoever. >> i have watched the video of this hearing, several times. and it is a mess. it is a mess. when cythia gets up to speak she is shut down there is a big, dialogue between commission and mr. lindsey and mr. ionin and all of this confusion, and he is looking through the papers and saying that i have the application here somewhere because her name on it.

her name is not on t >> i am talking about you. >> yeah, we our time. >> did you have the opportunity to be heard. >> we did not have the opportunity to be fully heard. because our rebuttal time we ended up trying to give to her. and our architect who had drawn up, we hired at great expense to draw up some modifications that we mentioned and you saw the side by side pictures of their proposal and they looked the same. a two foot, we are asking for 24 square foot modification. we are asking for a sloped roof on one small bedroom that is it. >> i mean the thing is still going to be huge. and it is still going to be a monster next to our home no we were not heard, our architect was not able to present that material because of this snafu. >> and those modifications are in addition to the ones that they say that gave you already. >> no they never gave us the modifications they did not. that is where the negotiations

broke down. we were asking for too much. you see, they are home, already extends and their sun room extends six feet beyond the foot prinlt of our house and they claim that as the extent of the house, and it is. it is a small room and thes a pop out and so they want to square that off. fine, so that means that they are actually adding and it is not a two foot extension and it is 700 square feet. >> commissioners you have a question answered? >> i am sorry. >> i think that we have heard. >> thank you. >> okay we will hear rebuttal from the permit holder? >> thank you, commissioners. i would like to say that the outset, that i personally am offended by the speakers who you just heard from, the right in the code to file an appeal does not give you a license to come to the board of appeals and call your neighbors project obscene, or your neighbor's

dedeceptive and we are talking about a two foot rear addition. >> excuse me. >> hey. >> the change in the building footprint is 125 squire feet. do we really need story poles to visual 125 square feet? >> anybody, i mean, a two square, and a two foot addition in the rear, this is really beyond belief. what i have been hearing. and to respond to commissioner fung's earlier questions, about changes, there were changes in the interior, that were made. to a bathroom. i believe. the model that miss commission put on the overhead was horribly exaggerated and of course, the addition looks nothing like that and all of the plans were dimensioned from the very beginning and our project architect and testified to that. and i was at the planning commission hearing and i will tell you that there was a very

full presentation of their case. they took up the full time and they had the speakers there and the planning commission engaged in the discussion among themselves for a lengthy period of time. i go to these hearings every week, there was no difference between this hearing and any other hearing, except this hearing might have been longer. and katherine moore is a very strict about the drs. and if a request to a dr is made to the planning commission, and it is denied unanimously, by a list of commissioners including commissioner moore, you can be sure that they did not make a case that satisfied her standard. so, i would also like to answer the question about the door in the rear. that door provides the only access to the upper level of the house. so i did not hear anything from

the appellants that would merit any change of a project of 125 square foot change from the current building with the two-foot extension in the rear. >> i never have worked a project this small. and i have been working on these projects for a long time. i have never seen one come forward this small, thank you. >> mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott san shes, planning department, the discretionary review hearing was held in april, 2014, 24th, and to my knowledge and from what i can find and any of the ement mails this was first each brought to my attention on saturday with an e-mail from miss smith don't have any e-mails from mr. miller until this morning and i did respond to them this afternoon and again, this is a matter of the

planning commission's rules, as implemented and enforced by the planning commission, and the executive secretary of the planning commission and so it is not a planning code issue and it is not a matter for the zoning administrator to, and as i said previously this is a denovo hearing and there are appeals filed and there are 14 minutes plus of the comment time for them and then 3 minutes in the rebuttals and to discuss this i think that they can raise all of the issues that they would like to, this is to correct any procedural errors that there may be at lower levels and that is the board's purview here. and now again, i trust that the board will do that, and in regards to a couple of the points that were raised. and to commissioner honda's question about the mid block open space, the property to the south does extend further into the block of the open space to the proposal here and they can put it on the overhead and

really the lot depth have no impact on the mid block open space and so this is the smith's house and you can see that there is the second floor deck with the living space below and this is the area here and the property to the north, and a second floor deck as shown here, and the subject property and they do have and you know, a bay window here, and it is not a traditional bay window that you would say, where it has head room and, it actually goes down to grade and so it sets up at two levels. and this is all, code compliant again and this is not or encroaching into the required rear yard and so we don't have any issue with the proposal, and what may or may not have been discussed as part of the private settlement between the parties and again, we rely upon the plans that we review and we approve to be code complying and i don't know what promises may have been made from one party to the next and we have to review the project and we

will never know and we will never be able to get to the bottom of who said what, and we have to have a project that complies with the planning code and we believe that we have that in this project and i am available with any questions. >> i am a little bit confused are these proposals for a modest change or a monsterous change? >> it depends on the perspective. in this case, i do believe that it is a modest addition, they are not encroaching into the required rear yard and not even close to it. and you know a lot of the impacts that the adjacent property to the south can complain about of feeling closed in is due to the structures that they have on their own lot is the fact that it is situated in a way that you know, the portion they do have portions that extend very

far into the rear of the lot. as compared to this if you are looking at the windows here and explaining of a feeling of being closed in here, and it is due, and not just to the expansion here and which is again, within the buildable area and it is also due to the existing structure that they have the own lot and they extend further into the rear yard than the adjacent property, you know, to their south. and so, i don't think that this is a monster, by any stretch of the imagination. modest, i think the probably a more appropriate description. you know, they have i think taken some approachs that reduce the impacts in particular on the adjacent property to the north because they do have the notching at this corner here. and so, you know, it is code complying and we didn't find any exceptional extraordinary circumstances here.

>> thank you. >> normally we will look at plans, mr. sanchez, we see the square footage, do you have any idea of the three properties? >> of the three properties. i could research that on the records, but. >> just ask for the tax records. >> let's see here. so the adjacent property to the south smith, listed as building area of 2715 constructed in 1806. move my little curse soar here, the subject property is listed as being built, the adjacent property to the north 1268 is also listed as being built in 1906 with the building area of 2715 and if i could get my thumb was smaller.

it is kind of on the fly here. >> wi-fi not working? >> no it is my thumb is too big. >> is there a neighbor to the north rkts 1266? >> 1216 and then 1266, right? >> and i think that, one of the speakers in the public says that it was three unit and 1268. >> and i can type it in rather than use my thumb. >> 1264, on the assess or records existing prior to 1900, and building area, 2240. and then, i will just type in, 12 66, >> with the addition with the infill on the inside, you know, you are looking at about, 2900 complete, right? >> yeah. >> and i think so.

i am in the able to find. >> and it seems that they are relatively close. >> it seems that they are the same. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> okay, i see no other commissioner questions for mr. sanchez. >> okay. >> anything nr duffy, commissioners the matter is submitted. >> you are just sitting down? >> a couple of observations, and one obviously communication, break down. >> great. and the, and i have no idea, why everybody wants to spend so much time discussing the issues at the planning commission, this is a a separate hearing. i did not hear all the things

that everybody wanted to say the architect you guys glossed over a lot of these issues in terms of what you wanted. it is still not clear in my mind. exactly what litigations were put up or not. >> besides that, this board, every week. hears and tries to as cer tain what is the level of impact and it rises on every case, whether it is a land use case or whether it is a procedural case. and we all need to make a determination as the board members what is the perceived impact by ourselves and where we think that the case is. it is my opinion that i don't see the impact as great as

described as the appellant and their supporters, is this no change, no there is a change and one of the things that this particular design did, that was different, than the adjacent building, is that they are not as set back as it was previously. if you look at both sides, they terrace down and when you have the flat wall it is going to create the issue. >> is it as great as the ver badge that i heard and no in my opinion and i am not prepare to over turn the permit. >> i echo commissioner fung. >> yeah, i took my word, and i was using the echo word too. and i do think that communication could have been a lill bit better and unfortunately we are here now and you guys got to remember that you are going to live on

the same block for a long time. and hopefully, this will mean that things will get better from this point and we do see a lot of case and again i am echoing my fellow commissioner that this is a denovo meeting it is not the planning commission we are the board of appeals and it would have been nice to the presentation that is directed to what we need to hear rather than a body that we have no control over. the reason why i asked for the four commissioners that were present, is that the four that were there, are actually the most diligent of the commissioners in my personal opinion. and the president, the vice president, moore, and so, do i hold their views and i support their views and a lot of times, yes i do. and so, i hope that you as neighbors, are able to figure this out. i don't think that this is an agregious addition as has been

said here and i think that the communication could be better and will not support the appeal as well. >> all right, i don't want to sort of pile on but i share my fellow commissioners some what disappointment that it was not appreciated that it is a denovo and that there was an opportunity to present the case better. not just the break down of communication but i would like to have known the promises that were made and why they were not kept and that might have made an impact on me and i did have this thought why am i hearing so much about and i sympathize that she did not get a chance to speak, but there was present of time to speak and i join the fellow commissioners and i don't see any reason to over turn. >> move to up hold on the basis that this is code compliant.

>> we have a motion from commissioner fung. to deny both appeals, and up hold this permit, on the basis that it is cold compliant. on that motion, president lazarus? >> aye. >> commissioner honda >> aye. >> commissioner wilson. >> aye. >> and thank you. >> the vote is 4-0 and this permit is upheld. >> there is no other business before the board tonight and we are adjourned.eesñesñsñ

>> good morning, and welcome to the transbay joint power authority board of director's meeting for thursday october ninth and i want to recognize the staff at sfgov tv who make the meetings available to the public and on-line. >> >> reiskin. >> present. >> harper. >> present. >> kim. >> present. >> and madam chair you do have a quorum. >> thank you. are there any communications today? or, old or new business for the board of directors? >> seeing none, we will move on toit em five, execut