c. i have a black and white copy. commissioner garcia: do you need a copy? >> i believe that is, in fact, fairly correct. commissioner garcia: could you put that on the overhead? >> sure. it may be much harder to read. it is a black and white copy, so -- commissioner garcia: ok, let's just go with that, and to you, that is basically where the deck would be. >> the dec does not actually sit on top of the roof. the dec -- the deck does not. we are not adding the 42 inch guardrail on top.

commissioner hwang: is there going to be a step down then? >> it will be level with the fourth floor. however, the roof rises above the existing level. there is probably about 24 to 30 inches, i do not have the exact dimension, from the interior to the finished roof level. commissioner hwang: got it. commissioner garcia: and that is a see-through? if somebo the top of the rail, it would hit them where? 42 inches from that. >> i would say, probably your note -- your knees -- we are currently showing it as being open. i guess one of the trade-offs, when you try to think about the

neighbors when you approach design projects, there is always a trade-off, because if it is a solid wall, it casts a more shatter note -- more shadow, and then they lose more light, more of you. i know that view is not protected. -- then they lose more lights, more viewmo -- re light -- more light. commissioner garcia: which you feel comfortable, and i do not know if the -- would you feel comfortable, and i do not know if the rest of the board would agree, if she gets more light, she may have to sacrifice primacy. it seems that we have -- " you can have a see through that will still allow light in note -- you

can still have a see through that was still allow light in? >> the deck is going to be used on a sporadic basis. it is something that would be exposed to the western winds that do come over 650 masonic, so it is going to be windy, so even though they have some outside space for the daughter, i do not know that that would be something used a great percentage of time. i do not know that. commissioner garcia: this may not be an issue, but if you were to put a privacy screen, could you explain what that would be like? >> a screen not only providing privacy for the neighbors, but there is a wind block, so there is some desirability.

however, that should maybe be about -- so it's sort of at your -- so it hits sort of at your eye level. i do not know if we did that, we would have some sort of notification issues. so immovable object that could be put there for screening purposes. commissioner garcia: thank you. vice president goh: i have one more question. could you say the square footage? >> it is 250 square feet on the deck level. the deck itself is 250 square feet. it is just a bedroom. vice president goh: that is an existing? >> that is existing.

vice president goh: and you have the bathroom and changing room and the roof deck, that is set in from the property line, and that is the 5 ft. plus. understood. >> the dimensions are the most restricted in a sense. there is a small bomb about to accommodate the laundry area. -- there is a small bump-out. vice president goh: i understand. thank you. >> i have spoken over my clients time. -- client's time. commissioner garcia: you get three minutes. i think that is in our packet. do you have one that is not in there? >> i am not certain that it

arrived. vice president goh: we have 1770. is that the address? >> 1776. >> mr. sandip -- >> thank you. mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. i appreciate your appellant's concerns, but i would say that the project sponsor and the project architect have done a lot to propose a modest addition. when projects like this are done, they are billed out to the property lines, and they have to be brought in -- and they -- when products like this are done, they are built out to the property line.

one of the reasons is that it is a noncompliant and nonconforming structure. -- non complying -- noncomplying and nonconforming structure. to accommodate the, they both have the deck -- to accommodate that. also, they have not proposed any windows on that property line. they would be able to do so. also, the with debt that is there, -- this roofed deck that is there, it provides space for the dwelling unit -- this roof deck. this is directly accessible from the living level.

it is off of the master bedroom. we usually like to see off of a common room. this is a slightly shorter lot, as well. they are further constrained in the dimensions. also, as noted by the project architects, they currently have the addition which is about from the front property line, and that is something that we pursued, so the department would not support an edition of the front of the property, -- an addition on the front of the property. if you were to have an addition, this would be the one to have. the appellant had raised some issues about the processing.

we can answer any more questions that the board has, and that concludes my presentation. commissioner garcia: thank you. >> i see no public to have public comment, but do we have any public comment? seeing none, we will move into rebuttal. >> kristen lyons. i want to address the light and shadow study. i have not had a chance to take a look at it prior. one thing that has been presented in the images, the shadow that is being cast from the existing structure is at a time of year when the sun is rising in the southeast, and

that shadow has always been there since i have lived there, so i have known about that. what is proposed addition will do, if you look at exhibit c -- what is proposed -- what this proposed addition will do, all of the light that comes through those two windows will be totally blocked from the structure and at that height, so wrote in the majority of the year, when it. so in the majority of the year, when the sun is rising in the east -- so in the majority of the year, when the sun is rising in the east, it will be blocked. .i also wanted to address -- i

also wanted to address that the deck will allow children to see over whatever guardrail that is. that will look directly into my window. it is not as if it is across the street, and it would be difficult to see into my private living space. i am being modest and sensitive. if those windows had been added, they would have been looking into my common area, not my bedroom. that is just looking into my entire private living space. i also wanted to address the letters of support i mentioned in one of my appeal letters to you. it is very easy to be in favor of something that has no direct

impact on you. and that is it. thank you very much. commissioner hwang: -- vice president goh: i wonder if you could put that last picture back up again? i thought the living room or the windows that were further out that would look onto the deck. >> these two windows in exhibit c are my bedroom. vice president goh: and then the other, could you show us the other once again? -- the other ones again? >> image a is the living room. vice president goh: it is marked bedroom windows. >> it says --

vice president goh: my copy does not say that. commissioner hwang: are copies do not say bedroom windows. -- our copies. >> any other questions? commissioner hwang: what is the size of your apartment? >> just under 1000 square feet. commissioner hwang: and you have been there nine years? >> yes. >> thank you. >> the thank you. -- note >> thank you. -- >> thank you. >> i want to tell you why this prompted is important to me and my family and clarify the shadow issue -- i want to tell you why this property is important to me.

so, first, me and my wife have a daughter. we are committed to living in san francisco. we have some issues with our house right now. for example, we only have one small -- small bathroom. we do not have a backyard. and there is equipment in the garage. it is inconvenient for our family. this project will achieve this. it will have important parts of the house be family friendly. number two, i do want to touch on the shadow issue. i think there is multiple evidence that the new structure would not provide a significant impact to the property, and i

think this picture really talks in great length, so this is a picture i took a round -- around 8:30 in the morning, and this shovel was coming from the existing fourth floor. -- this shadow is coming from the existing fourth floor. it is starting to clear one hour, 1.5 hours after sunrise. we used a 3-d model to address this issue, and we are convinced that the shadow will dissipate early in the morning, so the appellant's argument that the structure will significantly impact her daylight throughout the day or to the extent that

she would have to be lucky to get some sunlight is not based on evidence, it is inaccurate, and i think it is somewhat misleading, so in conclusion, i asked the board to deny the appeal. thank you very much. -- i ask the board to deny the appeal. >> commissioners, any comments? ok, the item is submitted. vice president goh: comments? commissioner fung: i will start. it is difficult for ms. lyons to

have a new structure that crosses a lot of your living space, since she has lived there a long time. 9.5 years is quite a substantial time, and, therefore, what you got used to was a valuable view, light, and air resources for her. the issue here, however, is also the right to expand upon his required living space. i do not know if there are further expansion problems that will happen in the future. this particular expansion is very modest. it occurs where the side yard and, in essence, a zero property line situation, even though

there are setbacks -- it occurs where this year -- where the side yard is, and, in essence, a zero property line situation. it allows views and light and air above. given the fact that it is very modest, given the fact that it is toward, that it is stored there for a four-bedroom, i see no reason to overturn their permit -- that is located there at the bedroom. commissioner garcia: it looks on

to ms. lyon's -- lyons' windows, but it is unfortunate, as a by commissioner fung -- as said by commissioner fung, the views and privacy than she has enjoyed for over nine years will be affected. had the owner of this particular property chosen to get involved, it is very possible that to avoid this process, they might have either paid for or helped pay for skylights. they can be opened so you can get additional air. i think we still have one

pending issue, and that is maybe to be worked out by the permit holder and the appellate, and that would be the choice between greater privacy, -- and the appellant, and that would be a choice between greater privacy, a wall, whatever, or to not have that and to have light and air. it seems the permit holder is open to either one of those. it has benefits to them, whichever of those happens. what is before us, and that is the issue of the appeal, i do not find enough evidence or enough reason to overturn this very modest addition to this house, and i would vote to deny the appeal. commissioner hwang: i am very

sympathetic to the appellant's position. i appreciate very much the shadows studies that were submitted, and they were very helpful to me -- the shadow studies that were submitted. the appellant is not convinced that it will have been minimal impact that is argued -- it will not have the minimal impact that is argued by the permit holder. but this will lead me towards denying the appeal. i think the proposed project is modest, as well, given what others and what you could have potentially done. vice president goh: i agree with what has been said.

i do want to commend the talent for bringing the case forward. we do not see very many tenants -- i do want to commend the tenant for bringing the case forward. i do, like it has been said, which that your landlord had gotten involved, but i think that you may be could have negotiated something -- maybe could have negotiated something for your unit. i agree with the other commissioners that it does appear to be modest and accommodates the needs of the family and that building, and the appellant's building does set far back, and it impacts probably the whole neighborhood in its depth, so i agree with

the other commissioners and will not support. commissioner fung: i move to uphold. >> mr. pacheco, could you read the world, please? the r -- the roll, plas -- p [l --please? -- please. secretary pacheco: the motion brought forward by commission fung. [reading roll] there are four ayes. >> there is no further business.

>> i work with the department of environment and we are recycling oil. thank you. we can go into a refinery and we can use it again. they do oil changes and sell it anyway, so now they know when a ticket to a. hal>> to you have something you want to get rid of? >> why throw it away when you can reuse it? >> it can be filtered out and

used for other products. >> [speaking spanish] >> it is going to be a good thing for us to take used motor oil from customers. we have a 75-gallon tank that we used and we have someone take it from here to recycle. >> so far, we have 35 people. we have collected 78 gallons, if not more. these are other locations that you can go. it is absolutely free. you just need to have the location open. you are set to go.

>> hello. 9 judge terri l. jackson. the court is now recruiting prospective civil grand jurors. our goal is to develop a pool of candidates that is inclusive of all segments of our city's population.