commissio and i only have two issues, and they have 16. it was smaller, a little bit. it was to reduce it. then, i said you could move it. commissioner fung: thank you. you have answered my question. sir, thank you. president peterson: thank you. mr. silverman, you have three minutes for a bottle. >> very briefly, in response to

mr. levenson, he stated that there is 5 feet between the property. -- mr. levinson. they have huge front yards in huge back yards. secondly, on the issue of moving this towards mari loma, it is violative of several policies, but the communication between the parties were in the context of settling their d.r. in other words, they came to my client and said, "we want you to move this this much forward." he said, "we can do it this much." they said, "no, we want it another 10 ft. or 12 feet."

no agreement was reached in settling the d.r., and the offer was withdrawn. it was made in the context of a settlement. commissioner garcia: who owns that tree? >> i have no idea. commissioner fung: mr. silverman, where all of the compromises that were offered pre-d.r. -- >> absolutely. the d.r. went forward. the idea was to avoid the hearing. yes, yes, sir. commissioner hwang: i have another question. the kinds of modifications they were asking for, including after

the tree was chopped down, are not being considered, and would you say that it sounds like they are not in any mood to attempt to come to any kind of a compromise? the question i have is if if any modifications did your client made in response? >> yes, we will be glad to go over that. she will tell you about those changes. i believe there in your packet. >> i am the project designer. i will just read from my brief of all the changes i made since september. we reduced the height of the building. we reduced an element that was originally there. commissioner hwang: before you

go for it -- through the list, this was all part of your outreach? >> yes, a compromise so we could move this project forward. everything my client agreed to, i did. we kept making compromises even after we were unanimously approved by the planning committee. we were still making compromises. i moved a bay that faces the levinsons. i removed the transom windows on the north and south side. i reduced the windows in height and width on the top floor and 1 foot in with on the middle floor. you know, the height, i did not stop. my client is going to be living there. i know this is not a spec house, so my intention has always been

to compromise as much as possible. commissioner hwang: what about the tree? >> i went to a lot of trouble to measure mr. zheng's house. commissioner hwang: you are 10 feet short of what the neighbor wants. >> after my last meeting with him, he was on his way to his attorney to draw up some kind of a deed restriction, because he was worried that my clients, because they are elderly, they are going to pass away soon, and he was worried that some of the heirs or someone would cut down

the tree again. our clients want the trees. they are not interested in looking down into his house. if you look at the site study, they are not going to be able to see in the first two floors. on the top floor, there are only two bedrooms. it is not a place where people congregate. commissioner hwang: is this tree issue not another area of potential compromise? >> we are planting the trees. commissioner hwang: so the answer is no? >> we never stopped compromising. commissioner fung: 20 say that it was that these trees were 15 feet, -- let me say that.

your documentation is that these trees will eventually grow to 25 feet. commissioner hwang: well, i do not know. commissioner fung: what is the ultimate height of these trees? >> 25 feet. commissioner hwang: thank you. vice president goh: i have another question. how the buildings line up now. we have heard that there are 5 feet apart, and then we have heard that they are over 20 feet apart. >> both things are correct. they are 5 feet from the property line.

this is the levinsons' the garage, and this does is 5 feet off of the property line. on this side, there is one very, very small window. that is that small window. commissioner hwang: could you go back? >> that is the small window that faces my client's property. that is their concern.

they want us to eliminate the only window we have in the kitchen, the only window we have in the storage room, and much of the master bedroom window. this is the levinson'ss' house, and they have 20 windows. they have a double lot. their lot is 60 feet wide. they have a very large view. that view is only going to change slightly after this g aehwiler house. this is a picture of the view from the levinsons' house with the empty lot on mira loma

drive. this would still be their view. commissioner hwang: is that including the view from that little window? >> no, that little window looks out over this direction. but i have to say, that little window is part of a big room that has a big picture windows, so it is not going to do that. vice president goh: is this something to be considered? >> we already took 1 foot out of it in height. >> -- vice president goh: thank

you. president peterson: mr. sanchez, do you have anything to add? so the matter is submitted. vice president goh: the window. >> the house did not exist. this is my window. this is my bedroom. this is a small window and i was talking about the windows in my bedroom. this is privacy. this is how the house would look. this is the house that does not exist yet. from this window, use seat where you can see the bedroom window.

vice president goh: thank you. >> thank you. vice president goh: oh, dr. levinson, when was your house built? >> in 1926. vice president goh: thank you. i will start, but i have not landed anyplace. ibm and pressed by the new permit holder's long list of concessions and changes they have made to the building. and yet, dr. levinson's

building, it is clear it will be affected by having tall buildings next to it, and his buildings is one of those shallow but very wide 1920's and very precious to many of us historic structures, so i hate to see a compromise by new construction. on the other hand, they have done a lot to accommodate the neighbors. i am very troubled by the trees, although i do not know what jurisdiction we have. like i said, i have not landed anywhere. these are my preliminary thoughts. i will hear from my fellow commissioners.

commissioner fung: there are several issues here. the one issue related to the trees, given the age of when it was built, i do not think this is something -- it becomes more of a civil issue between the property owners. this particular species that they are intending to plant at the property line should attain the height that she mentioned, but it will take a little while. no matter how fast growing it is, it will take a little while. the real question is that here was an empty lot, and people got used to it, and whether it is an

issue, it is also an issue that one gets used to in an area. therefore, it is hard to accept. i feel that there is some level of compromise. i feel that the neighbors should have taken it out of the yard. for our experience and history, what was offered was quite substantial. they chose not to take it, and i understand. i understand the permit holder's desire not to put that on the table. i find that the particular

building and its siting are consistent for a new structure given the site area and the neighborhood. it was designed with some sort of sensitivity towards the neighbors. it is and what i call sensitive. it may not be totally acceptable to the neighbors, but as a professional and seeing the types of cases that we have seen, i find it to be somewhat sensitive, and therefore, i would support the denial of the appeal. president peterson: i will go next. i understand that change is difficult, and yet, these are some of the biggest blocks.

i live in a 1920's home and so does my neighbor. this is 21st century living. i think curtains can easily solve the problem here, so i would be inclined to agree with commissioner fung's statement. commissioner hwang: i think many of the concessions that were made it sounds like were in good faith, and i will not repeat many of the comments previously made by my fellow commissioners, and i will also be inclined to uphold the permit and deny the appeal. commissioner garcia: i would agree with those who want to

deny the appeal and uphold the permit. the two people who watched these proceedings who live and other parts of the city and with what goes on in san francisco will be amazed that someone is talking about their privacy in their backyard being compromised " by windows 80 feet away from there's -- compromised by windows 80 feet away from theirs. it is consistent. it was brought before the commission for discretionary review. discretionary review was not taken. i think this is a very nice project, and i think several commissioners have addressed what for me was the principal issue in this whole time, and that is the fact that you get used to what you have. a vacant lot there, and all of

these people better going to be affected by this project got used to it. i think they have lost sight of the fact that vacant lots belong to someone, and they have their rights, also. at any rate, having heard from the other commissioners, i would move that we deny the appeal and uphold the project. >> it complies with code and the residential design guidelines. president peterson: mr. pacheco? secretary pacheco: commissioner

hwang, commissioner garcia, commissioner fung, vice president goh, president peterson. the idea is approved. president peterson: could you call item 10? secretary pacheco: a permit it to alter a building. jurisdiction was granted june 9 of this year. president peterson: we will start with you, the appellant. >> the landlady did not turn in her statement on time, and at

the jurisdiction meeting, she did not turn your statement in on time. if you remember, she also kept us waiting 1.5 hours because her architect did not show up on time, so i am not sure what i need to be saying here beyond what i wrote before the first board, the jurisdiction board, and now you. i realize it's some of this sounds a bit fantastical answer korea, but that is my life -- i realize that some of the sounds a bit fantastic " -- fantastical and surreal. i stand behind it all. i do not care how ludicrous it sounds. that is what is going on. and there are people in the audience, and i am just dying for them to come up here and deny those events, especially when there are so many witnesses, and if you're a member of the jurisdiction

trial, the landlady somewhat tacitly acknowledged the death threats. she was there. she called the police. i was there. my roommate was there. the police were there. the neighbors were all watching. it is a real event. i am not making that up or exaggerating it. i called the police last year over more problems. that was a couple of months before the landlady's contractor got his death threat, and he talked to the first or twice. they are discussing their behavior in public at boards. but what does all of this have to do with the issue before you? i understand that this is a very mundane issue about a window been boarded up. i am just the tenants. -- tenant.

the previous landlord is a friend of mine. i knew all of the previous tenants. the blame lady has been up close to this board. this exists, ok. i have never been closer than three or four feet. all of the of their tenants and i have stayed away because we do not want our intestines on the sidewalk. i do not think the window should be boarded up. there's absolutely no reason on the planet to board it up. it would turn the room into a dungeon. that is a court violation. it would turn a bedroom into a windowless, dark, damp, cold, moldy room, and it will affect the other rooms. it will be a big mess. the landlady i do not think is here right now to confirm a lot

of this stuff. but i think she has a new lawyer here. and i have seen your statement to the board, even though i do not know if you have seen her statement to the board, and i do not know if i can comment on that. can i? ok, with all of the legalese, i think she is now in agreement with us. going ahead and boarding up the window. ok, i am hoping a lawyer will confirm that, and if she and i are on the same side, we just have to worry about the people next door. how valid is their claim? they cannot see in the window. all i see is the air over their backyard. what privacy issues are involved, as you mentioned a few minutes ago? but, yes, the window is on the

property line. that is for sure. there are 100,000 windows on the property line in san francisco. they are not retroactive to the 19th century or the 20th century. when i got my back door, like many others, i take a couple of steps, and i am touching the building next door. windows on the property line. my privacy, boo hoo, who cares? it has been 85 years that these houses have been next to each other. i mean, you know, if you think is a window out of the other 999,000 should be boarded up, ok. i assume we would have to move out. the bedroom would not be

livable. we would have to have six months of renovation. i am not the property owners involved. i am is witnessing what is going on. and that is all i have to say. thank you. commissioner fung: you indicated that legal representation for the landlord is here? ok, one of the things that we talked about last time was to explore and resolutions. have you had any meetings with the landlord regarding whether the window could be placed somewhere else? >> she told us in vaguely about what was going on about the people next door threatening to board up the window 1.5 years ago. since then, we have not talked to anybody. the property manager has given us the nation. the contractor has told us more than she has, and it is alarming, because there is a lot

more going on. the forecast to be taken up. -- before hat -- the floor has to be taken up. commissioner fung: but you have not talked to them? >> no. commissioner fung: thank you. can i go? >> this is a picture of the window. as you can see, it is approximately so far from the ground. this window was installed about 50 years ago. my client has flown to this property for about 20 years, so this window predates my client for about 30 years -- my client

has own this property for about 20 years. there have been no issues of privacy about this window. now, all of a sudden, it is the result of a dispute between mr. hasson and others. it has never been an issue before. also, there is a notice of violation that has been issued. a notice of violation has been done twice, and i spoke with somebody and ddi, and they said they would be working on that case if this violation is not abated -- i spoke with somebody at v.b.i. -- dbi. the permit is very clear. we'll try to comply with the nov -- we are trying to.

that is it. it is not about a dungeon. we wrote try to comply with the -- we were trying to comply with vdthe nov. he told me it was his understanding it would comply. i have another conversation with mr. corn fell -- kornfield. it was my understanding that this work would be for the nov, so we do not have the issue the and mr.hasson has by virtue of the appeal.