and miller purchased the house and made the renovations, mckency and miller knew that the second level extended beyond their house when they purchased their home and they willingly chose to proceed. and they also decided that it was not important to address the issue when they remodeled their own house. the project adds only two feet to the rear of the existing, house on the second level, along the property line shared with miss mckency and mr. miller. and the bay window is set back, from miss mckency and the property line by three feet. and from inside of the house they would not be able to see the window and would not cast a shadow on the deck or the living space. they have failed to mention that since they moved in, they have significantly landscaped their backyard with trees and tall shrubs on all property

boarders. by doing so, have intentionally created their own box and shadowed their own property and it is impossible to reconcile this landscaping designed with the claim concern about the loss of visual openness, and boxed in impact. and with respect to miss smith. and i just mentioned that her house is larger than the layton's house will be after the addition is constructed. and her house extends beyond the layton house on the first and second levels and she has put fences on all sides of her property, and layton's project was approved by the planning commission, 4-0, but for the discretionary review application filed by the appellants with the planning commission, the permit would have been approved, administrativelisingly by the planning staff. and slight impacts to the neighbors are to be expected in connection with me building project. this proposal, or the permitted

project is significantly more limited than the allowed height and bulk permitted by the planning code and it will allow, 500 square feet of living space of which 125 square feet is beyond the existing footprint. this is to a structure that is over 100 years old. houses that were designed and built 100 years ago. are generally lack ng space for kitchens and bathroom and closests. and the proposed alterations are allowed as a matter of the right by the planning code and there are no variances or code exceptions, and the additional space is very minimal. and i would like to add, also, that miss smith pointed out at least three or four times that her views to the north were going to be impacted and the planning code does not provide any views. >> i have a question.

>> and the project architect is here also, to answer any questions, ma you may have. >> in your papers you said that several modifications were made and settlement broke down, can you tell me what those mot identifications were? >> yes, the architect is here and she participated in those discussions, and she will be... >> and those modifications remain now that the settlement discussions have broken down? >> project architect? >> yes, we met. >> please identify yourself. >> i am lesscy arnold and i am the architect. >> we met multiple times and

they had a list of things that they would like, and we accommodated some of them and we brut the third floor down the third floor back four feet. and we brought the other we eliminated a bay window on the back, you know, that they did not want. and so we made some modifications and they would come back, and you know, request additional modifications. after we worked on it and tried to come to an agreement. and modifying it. >> and your question is whether those stayed in the plans. >> yeah, they stayed in the plans, we eliminated the three story bay window, and we pushed back the third floor four feet. >> and the additional modifications were not made. >> the ones that came back. >> yes. >> thank you. >> mr. silver many have a

question. were you finished? >> yeah. >> it was referenced to the story polls, were those supposed to have been put up and what might have happened with that? >> there were not story poles put up. >> that was never part of the discussion? >> according to the appellants the permit by the holder or your office agreed to story pose. and is that incorrect? >> i was never contacted with respect to the story poles. >> yeah. >> please come forward when you are addressing. >> we were waiting to see if the plans were even approved by planning before we would do that and we didn't make a promise that we will do it and we said that we needed to see what was going to be approved and if the planning was going

to come back with any modification and they didn't. are you done? >> so mr. sanchez? >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department, the subject property is located with an rh one and that is a single family zoning district, and the permit application was submited in june of 2013 and as has been noted the extent of the work additions at the rear, and at the rear has as you can see and it is seen as kind of a mix of structure and it would extend it two feet further from the greatest depth of the building. and so that is how we would have described it in our notices. the residential design team reviewed this after it was submitted and prior to the neighborhood notification, and the design team and that the design was appropriate and it

was code complying but also, that met the requirements of the residential design guidelines, and they noted that it kind of did a lot to resolve all of the odd structures at the rear. and that given the other structures on the block that it did not represent an inappropriate extension to the mid block opened space. and the neighborhood notification was performed between october and november of last year and there was a discretionary revie filed and they heard it this year from april and addressing the issue about who or, who was or was not a dr requestor and the staff interpreted the dr application, in the point where it stated in the first response to the discussionary application and it stated that miss smith the owner of 1268, joins in for the review and her

property is adjacent to the subject property on the south side and additionally there were e-mails from miss smith that stated that i joaned ken and julie in the filing of the review in the e-mail from the attorney, who was representing the miller party, and she stated that they did not represent cynthia however they did join in the process, and they were asking how much time that smith would have to present and the staff did incorrectly state that she would be given three minutes to speak. and at the hearing, the staff that was attending stated that and this is based not on the planning code requirement and but on the rules of the planning commission. that any party to the dr, must speak under the dr requestor's time. and it was stated by the commission, and the secretary that at that hearing that because of this, and also in our staff report, we listed them very clearly as dr

requestor and that was public that was publicly available before the hearing, but regrettablely for the staff to give this information to the to miss smith. and that said, this is a denovo hearing and there were two appeals filed and they have had the time here to present, and believe that the board can remanned this back to the planning commission or the department for review, and that i trust that the board gives this item a full and fair hearing. >> and listen to the concerns and address those as appropriate. >> and just to the points that was raised we feel that it is modest, and the expansion of the building, that adjacent to the property to the north, which will be the most impacted, it is notched at the back at the third story and when we think that this is the address and the issues for the property and a lot of concerns for the view and it is not

protected, and the potential legal unit and there is no second unit on this property and they have proposed a full bath on the ground story, and i think that it has been on the plan and the 311 mans and i think that after the 311, and they had add aid second laundry in ground level which is allowed and, we do regulate the development on the ground floor to ensure and discourage the legal units from being created and this is the room and they are allowed to have the full bath and to have the second laundry in that location and so there are no issues that we find there, in regards to privacy, i think that and that was one of the concerns of the mis, smith and the concerns will be related to the small deck that is at the rear and the second story, but, again, it is not a comment to have,

the decks and she was talking about having the ability to stand on her back deck and look at other neighbors and talk to other neighbors and as we live in the city it is not uncommon to have the ability to you know, in case i look and someone rear yard and that does not something that represents acceptable or extraordinary circumstances which are necessary to make the modifications to the code complying project. in regard to the story poles the department of the planning commission we do not require it and some do require that as part of the review process and we do not require that in san francisco. i think that those were most of the points that i wanted to raise but i am available for any questions. two laundry? >> no. >> i mean that it is, i mean there is nothing against it and there is nothing that prohibits it. and if it is used illegally as

a second unit, then there will be enforcement consequences for that. but, we actually see a fair number that have more than one laundry, especially if it is a multistory building. some people, may have two or three and in this case, they have one on the top story, which has all of the bedrooms. and then there is one here on the ground story, which you know i guess if you want a second laundry, there is nothing that prohibits this and they have not committed any violation, she has a ground tlaor as well aa full bath and the dog washing station and a pool. >> and so i mean this is something that, you know, no crime has been committed. >> my question was, were you at the planning commission hearing? >> no i was not. >> do you know which four commissioners were attendance? >> yes, i do. >> let me just find that here.

so in attendance and voting to deny the discretionary review request, and maintain any, and fong and moore and wu >> should we go in the order. >> i would ask you questions and i should know the answers to all of them so bear with me. the plans to go out as a result of the 311 notification, do they have to meet the certain planning department requirements? >> in regards to the code compliance, or just what they look like. and how much detail that they have. and we do have it, and you know, basically, and we have the adjacent properties that are shown on there and there is a representation and the properties, and the players to require there and all of the

information necessary to convey the scope of the work and you know, thinking in this case, they have had a meeting before they even had the preop meeting and there was the preop meeting and i think that other plans were distributed to the parties and it seems that it is not necessarily a feeling of not knowing what the project is, and it seems that there is a lot of communication around that. >> is there a discussion if they don't take dr o or do they hear the presentation and decide whether or not to take the dr. >> it used to be two part process and, they will decide if at the want to hear the matter. and so in this case, it is consolidated into one and the requestor gets to speak and the

supporters would get to speak, and the project sponsor gets to speak. and then any members in support of the project would get to speak and rebuttals from the parties. and then turned over to the commission and not really dissimilar from the process that this board has. >> they are not likely to really talk about elements of the project if they are not going to take dr? >> they have gone to, there was a case that we had on ash bury a couple of weeks ago, where the commission had extensive discussions over three hearings about the projects. >> yeah. >> but yeah, it ended up not taking dr. >> do you know in this particular case? >> i do not know kind of what extent they had discussions other than that they voted to not take discretionary review. and i guess that everyone else here was here that night was at

the hearing that night and maybe they can answer that question better. >> and the last question is like, oh, there is also, i think that the discussion about another door at the back of this project that is creating some of this concern about the inlaw unit. >> and i mean, that the, the space on the ground floor does have direct access to the street through the storage room, and it is direct access to the treat but under our rooms down matrix which we have been applying for 20 something years this is allowed and you can come in and even if this project, if that was the only scope of the work for this project and some someone just wanted to come in and do what they are doing on the ground floor, it will be approved over the counter and there is no need for the notification to do the improvements on the ground floor, it is the expansion that triggered the neighbors. >> commissioner fung? >> yeah. really. >> sanchez?

>> scott, i do have a question. >> don't go anywhere. >> there was some mention about the documents having been changed and has your staff looked at between the 311 verses the site permit? >> what i understood and the site permit has been revised also. is it still the same design? and the same extent? >> i believe so. i mean what i understand is that the changes to be are the changes and the layout of the ground floor. and i in reading the materials i was not aware of any specific allegations of changes that would in somehow require a new notification or result in any other further processes. >> and i mean, that one comment that i have on the ground floor is that it looks a little bit odd how they have a door opening into a stairwell, but dbi will be addressing that.

>> it is a large door. >> the other issue was as i remember, story poles are usually requested by planning commission. >> no, it is not, it has not been a routine practice. >> no, when it has been done, they have requested it so that they can see it, and sometimes it is negotiated between the neighbors to see exactly what the volumes are. >> i see, not in the recent time i can't recall a lot of or any recent cases where the commission has requested the erection of stotterry poles and continued the item and gone out to do a site visit and come back at a later date and deliberated and not the kind of the current planning commission. >> used to be a lot. >> no, i mean that is true, and i remember reading it is minutes from the older planning commission hearings and they used to do a lot of field trips

together. >> thank you. >> mr. duffy? >> commissioners i don't have too much to say on this case. apart from the permit is a site permit has been issued as you know and appeal has suspended and the addendum was going through the review and it has been reviewed by apparently on hold with the buildings due to at peel but it looks like it is pretty typical for what we see and in this type of project and i don't have any concerns from the building code point of view but if you have and if the board has any questions i am happy to answer them. >> thank you. >> okay. we are going to take public comment now. >> so, i don't think that is you mr. silver man, is there any public comment on this matter? >> okay.

please step forward. >> if there is a significant number of people that we could have you line up on the wall that will certainly help us to move through this more quickly and as you have heard me say earlier if you could fill out a speaker card that would be helpful, thank you. >> thank you. >> my name is ran dal shiler and i am a native san franciscan and i have learned in the inner sunset for over 40 years and i have been a close friend of smith for a good part of that time and have met, julie and ken miller through her and through the community events over the years. and she has lived in her home at 1265, sixth avenue for 64 years her entire life, and it was very unsettling at the dr hearing that she is speaking time was denied because she was told that she was a member of the dr team. this is untrue. and specific, and unique concerns were never heard by

the commission and they are not part of the dr application and so it has never been stated at all and there are only four commissioners present at the hearing and it seemed extremely disorganized. >> as a result of the error, the entire dr presentation by the miller, mckency was destroyed. this allow is reason for the planning commission to reconsider this case. as a long time fifth avenue, i am concerned about the encroachment in the space that is created in the square block and sets a dangerous precedent and i request that you reconsider this project in the current form since it will be out of character and scale for the neighborhood and would impact the equality of life of the two adjacent homes.

thank you. >> you know that miss smith property actually encroaches more into the open space, her building is longer. >> i am sorry. >> questions. >> i am just pointing that out. that >> i mean the diagrams i don't really see that. >> okay. >> thank you. >> next speaker? >> good evening, my name is regina carson and i am a long time res did he want of san francisco, and a good friend to the miller kency family and i have had a long and successful career in the various roles including business development and sales i mention this as i am trained and practiced of being a good listener and i am

a trained engineer. overheads please. >> sorry. okay. i have participated in many meetings, and a hearing on the subject at hand, since the laytons announced their project in may, 2013. and then the mckency millers have in good faith, asked these plans to be slightly altered to respect the lighting of their house. and the quality of life thereof. and i am shocked by how duplicitus they have been in hiding their plans and to work with the neighbors in taking into account the impact that the proposed project will have on the neighbors. right here are minutes that i took, in the initial meeting of the neighborhood in the may 2013, where they said that they will put in the story poles to illustrate the proposed project and the modifications were only

a 2 foot extension that they would act in good faith to work with the neighbors, to implement a project that will take the neighbors into consideration. and the laytons have not kept any of these promises. and in addition, i attended the dr, where smith, and the other immediate neighbor was denied the rights to attest, the layton project and the dr was a procedural mishap and you have seen the pictures of the house and the proposed housing. they are asked for modifications of a few feet, to the proposal, and ordered to preserve the integrity of their lifestyle. and therefore, i respectfully, request the board to support

these efforts. i am a long time resident of the city, and friends of the mckency millers. and it just seems like a situation, you know, everybody in this room is a caring person with a kind heart and somehow, the train of procedure, and intention is just gone off the tracks, in this case. and you know the thing about the neighbor to the south not being heard was one excellent point and i, i am just not you know, nobody means any harm here, but we saw a sand born map up on the wall, no measurements on it and it meant nothing and that is sort of the quality of what i have seen about this picture. and about this project.

and, so, you know, nothing is totally, malicious or in tensional but it has been confusing for me as an independent observe and her certainly for the mill and her mckencies and i mean, that when ken miller went over to the neighbor's property, and they, and he said, well can i have a copy of the plans that has measurements and i said no, these plans are proprietory and i completely respect that. and yet, they are just have not been plans the lots are under size $and they are 90 feet and if he went to the middle of the block they would be 115, and so when you take a little lot, and

you dedicate some of it, basically, the yards gets proportionally much smaller, and so, in summary, the neighbors were not heard, and this extent of the project was at best confusing. and the and it did not seem like it was a facilitation of any reasonable compromise, thank you. >> next speaker please? >> thank you. >> i am a home owner in this neighborhood, block for over 30 years. i am here to support my friends and neighbors, and i have been a teacher for over 35 years in san francisco. i also feel that it is important to right these wrongs they were told that the

addition will be minimal compared to the reality of the plans it is not okay to bully and to be deceptive to get what you want, it is already and important to make improvement and remodel, but the plans for this project need to be redrawn and minimized and be clear. right now it is an obscene plan as we can all see in the model images. and this is the significant burden, and concerns for the three cynthia, ken and julie, and that when they step out to the porch they see this of a wall and a cliff, and of their neighbor's property, and that is outrageous and simply unacceptable. >> and my request is that your power to make these decisions that the owners of 1264 make the significant changes this means back to the drawing board for clearer proposals. this is bad karma.

if you take the light of your neighbor you need to do the right thing and respect them. thank you. >> excuse me, do you want to state your name for the record? >> my name is helen luke. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please? >> hi, my name is kim, and my husband and i own 1254, the first unit on the other side of ken and julie, i am here representing my family and the other two home owners of that building, my husband and i learned about this proposed project after we bought our property two years ago and since the natural light in our home and the over all character of our neighborhood were the major raoens that we decided to buy. and we along with many other neighbors attended the preapplication meeting, and honestly we were encouraged by some of what we heard there and we were told that the story poles would be put up to get a

better sense of the scale of the proposed project and i did take that to mean soon and that we will be able to react to it and i remember it well because as a home owner it was the first time that i heard the term story poles and we thought that would give us a better sense of the scale and we would be able to know how it would effect us and the rest of the neighborhood and we left believing that compromise was possible. and had any of that happened i would not be standing here, instead the story poles never went up and we thought that we would get the revisions and the plans never arrived and they were left to speculate about the true size of the addition, and which from the plans using the larger than the rear addition that we were hearing about and the photo looking out from the yard was taken from the upstairs of our building and that the closest idea that we have right now. we know that other neighbors have thought about it and our op