that extend from property line to property line in which case the light well becomes what is the light well. these are not intended to be able to have liked an official access across the property line -- light and visual access. the issue is not like to the bedroom. northern exposure must have windows. there might be a window on the south side of the bedroom facing the light well that that is not the issue. the issue is the window into what they call the dining room. what i find contradictory is the comment that she would like quiet. we will not have quiet with

either an open rail or a glass well. if she is interested in quiet, they should put up a solid one that is much higher and perhaps blog not only the visible aspects but also some of the sound. the light well faces west. the light is not impacted at all except perhaps late in the afternoon in the west son and the horizon. i don't even know the conditions around the neighborhood. the question is what is equitable for the permit holder vs what accommodation can be

made. listening to her and her concerns, i would have thought neither a glass or an open rule but a six or 7 foot high is more appropriate. because of that, it would be very minimal. >> there are some contradictions. and the one hand, i think that the two feet additional job in will not have any impact on reducing the noise of children. they will make noise. adults make noise as well. there is noise that will be had on the entertainment space. i don't see much value in that

in terms of addressing those concerns. i don't think that the light is impact, however i think that there is value in neighborly relationships. if you're talking about 600 bucks, that is worth it. if you are taking a principled position, we don't have to do anything you are not required to do. you will have a neighbor that is unhappy. this is a tough call. this is a tough call from where i am sitting. i think that to the accommodation and said that was a good one. we have gone the sanction of planning. these are just some thoughts on i have. >> i would agree, i'm very sympathetic to your situation and the fact that you want as

little noise as possible. i don't see where a 2 ft. not to have any measurable effect. i don't think of this will have a solid real or class will affect the light that much. i wonder if the two parties involved, the appellant or permit holder would benefit from having a discussion about it is either one or the other in the sense that you could probably achieve some reduction in the amount of noise as suggested if you would put 8 solid structure of their which would affect your light more or you could perhaps prevail upon them to improve your light and do nothing. if both sides are agreeable to have a further discussion about

this and knowing what the options are, you'd want to have discontinued and come back another time to see if he could not reach an agreement to keep you as good neighbors and a harmonious situation. we are glad to grant a continuance. >> the other compromise and i think that there are ways to deal with a single piece of glass which is put their that matches the width of the light well, this could be framed appropriately. that is a compromise. >> that would be one thing if you decide to have a continuance, that would be one of the things on the table. that is what i was trying to present. >> do you have any objection if we get a brief comment from each

party as to whether or not they're willing to have a continuance? >> we are open to doing the continuance. we want to have a good relationship and if we have more time, we could have reached a compromise. from our standpoint, we can handle a continuance. >> we have a lot of cases in the next meetings. this would be the next reasonable time. >> well, we have to talk to

them. >> we are suggesting -- >> i don't know how long this case will try again. we are trying to stop their work as soon as possible. we are in the middle of construction. >> we have one more case. would you like to meet outside and see if you can draft a compromise, then no one has to come back. >> ok. we can talk about that. >> take the next case. >> if you have a solution, then there is no continuance. is that right? >> i was thinking the same. >> should we call item number 10? >> calling item 10, appeal

number 10-63. the property is that 2015 pacific avenue and this is protesting the issuance of a permit to alter a building, install wood sleepers and decking with 42 inch high glass and steel guard rail on two flat roof portions of the building, constructed a would stare on sleepers over a second-floor landing up to the deck above and provide a handrail along the stair. >> thank you. we represent the appellants

which adjoins the project site on the west side. the work being appealed are two new decks which are located on the third and first floor. both of these are either entirely or partially within the rear yard for this property and would have substantial negative impacts on the part of my client's property. >> were we supposed to get plans at in the hearings? >> yes. mr. brother was calling to provide them. >> let us have that. >> have you provided a copy to the appellant? >> yes, i did.

this afternoon. >> we will not take your time. i understand. >> let me know when you want to proceed. >> what are we supposed have? we are confused with all the copies. do we have one or do we have four? >> thank you.

>> are you ready? >> are they? >> do you have a resolution? >> they have waited this long. i think that we can finish, if you don't mind. >> i think she's not feeling very well. we understand her situation. we will continue to talk with this week. if not, we will come back. >> i will move this case to be continued to next week. >> is this early in the calendar? >> we have confirmation from the

department or the board? >> no. >> how do we know what time or day we should be here? >> we will let you know. >> we agreed to continue. we will have discussion this week to try to find a middle line. >> we are considering next wednesday. >> thank you. >> commissioners, the motion is to continue this until next wednesday to give the parties an opportunity to continue to discuss a resolution. please call the item. >> we are calling backed 10-60.

we are continuing this on august 18th. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> the matter is continued one week. mark your calendars. >> if you do reach an agreement between now and next week, you can let the board know what that agreement is. if you wish, you can have the matter with strong and you can come to the board with that agreement and they will help you. >> ok. >> we are done with item number

nine, now we're back to item number 10. >> i am steve atkinson on behalf of the appellants. these are all within the required guard. we request the board to return a permit for the following reasons. these are on the rear yard and should have required a variance contrary to the interpretation relied upon. even if for some reason this is not required, the appellant should have been given a 30 day notice as is typical for those which are subject to d.r.. we would request that the hearing be continued because of the fact that the permit t

failed. just a few minutes ago to provide a the plans which would have allowed you to consider the impact. such a continuance would be an opportunity for the appellant and the permit holder to try to reach resolution on this matter. the permit the has refused to discuss this. both of the proposed are indisputably in the rear yard. part of the third level is outsiders the rear yard and about 2/3 requires the rear yard. this will be seen on the plans and i have details here. >> he mentioned a continuance. the one to address an issue of continuance now on the merits or

hear from the other side? >> whatever is the board's pleasure. i would be happy to address it now. in some cases, the board likes to hear a case before deciding whether or not it should be continued. the board has only just now seen the plans. >> are you requesting the continuance? >> yes, i am. >> are you counsel for the other side? >> mr. butler. >> i will leave the clock. >> thank you.

>> we are here, we are ready to go. we don't see why this needs to be strung out any longer. we noticed the appellant, the intentions with respect to the deck. the planning department noticed in 2010 for 10 days consistent with the interpretation of the planning code. this process -- this has to do with the plans which we did not get until today. >> this is the tail feathers of a larger project. this goes through the process and mr. atkinson has reached out and plucked one for other and from that one featherhead he would like to begin the process on the whole project because the client did not have 30 days. >> would you address why we did not get plans until today?

>> i did not know the plans were required by the board, i was here for other projects. i was unaware that plans were required. i did not get them to you because i was not here physically to do that. >> i suggest the continuance. >> with no objection, we will go ahead. >> i don't see any continuance but it is up to the majority. >> we feel prejudiced about

these plans but we can discuss this. >> are there any parts of the plans that are confusing to you and give some different light on the case you presented? >> we had been able to go down to dni and we were able to review the plans. this is not just a question of my knowledge and the fact that we have known about this for a long time is irrelevant. my understanding is for the board's understanding of the project rather than the appellants. that is the issue which i believe is the basis for the request for a continuance and for them to try to resolve this. >> i it bought some of the

issues for various work -- so i was not completely -- of the plans to make our decision. >> is there a majority? >> yes, i would feel like we could go ahead without having seen the plans. there are lots of other issues and i did not feel like i was hamstrung by not having plans to refer to. >> i explained the reasons why we believe that the permit should be overturned, i have a diagram appear. can you turn this or how do i do it? this is one of the pages of the

plans that you just received, this is not terribly legible but let me point out here that this is the project site, okay. there is a line approximately here which is shown as the rear yard. there is a deck here that is on the third level, about 2/3 is as thin be required rear yard, then a lower level deck on top for one portion of the building that is completely in the rear yard. under the permit holders, they have made some allegation that there simply replacing the lower deck. the plans say new debt rather than a replacement. there might have been one there at some point in the past but it

does not seem to be the reason why the step was approve so the board needs to look at that as two new decks. >> the appellant does not challenged this. >> do you want them to stay on the screen? >> no, says the board has the plans, what i would like to put up here on the overhead, this is a few that was in the permit holders papers. this is a few of the rear yard of my client's property. this shows that it was taken from the area of the proposed third for the debt and this gives you an indication of the total lack for destruction of privacy of my clients regard --

to rear yard. a non complex structure may not be enlarged or altered if there's any increase in discrepancy. this includes glass and steel railings and is certainly increase the discrepancy by adding to the top of the structure. the deck might be added to a non complex structure if there really is minimized. this is plainly beyond the scope of what the section permits. this is a minimum railing and this only reduces, this is not eliminate the discrepancy. in general, the party wishes to

change this. only a 10-day notice was provided. the city -- they were out of the city and they were not advised of the issuance. the time has run high. their only option was to go to this board. because the properties are closed and have windows facing each other, this is not have significant privacy impact but we believe this is incorrect. the persons on the lower and the rear yard deck would only be about 13 feet from the

appellants rear yard. the floor would be at or above the height of the sense there for a person standing or even sitting would have a complete you into the rear yard from a somewhat lower angle and the illustration that i gave you. you see these you from the overhead. while the project site has windows that might have a view into our yard, it is obvious that in most cases, they are closed or partially closed and people don't spend a lot of time standing in their windows. a person standing or sitting what has a substantially greater privacy impact then be provided windows. let me briefly discuss, my client initially advised the other side a year ago that they have problems with the deck. there is no effort made to

contact them. the peit holder decided to push this through and perhaps rely on the short notice. when we were advised of this, we tried to reach out to the architect and to the other side and they basically have rebuffed us at every time to even discuss this matter. the appellants had no option but to file the appeal. we respectfully request -- based on the reasons i have stated. >> thank you. >> good evening, 1st the would like to thank my architect for creativity, energy, taking me

through the permit process, permitting a handicapped better and that is truly remarkable. i'm here to request that we did well to build those decks. once this is including pictures, this has been here for years. we removed the deck, which i told you in a letter, on july 27th. basically, we had a tenant there at a barbecue there and we thought it was a fire hazard when joe came to visit for his first time on the top floor, he clambered out the window, climbed up the fire escape, and said "this is great, i can see a dead appear and i can also see what i have been talking about. people have lined up the fire

escape four years. if we had a deck, as someone climbs up, and they have climbed up, this is instant death of someone falls. this is also a fabulous view from one i have been told. we had a new roof done by the same people who did the city hall roof. they said it was fabulous of there. i looked at them. they said that they could fix it so that we could have a deck sunday. mr. atkinson sent you a copy of the e-mail back to me where she said she did not object to the

top roof but she did object to the one off of the bedroom. i told her that i wanted to continue having the one off of the bedroom. one of the things that we did was removed the stairs from the house. we had a great deal into their yard or their house. a much better view than we have had from the deck. since we removed the stairs, we no longer have access to our fire escape except from the bedroom deck. thank you. there's something on the screen.