just one thing about our privacy. it would be in our back room window. we can open the window and make noises to our window. i do not think anybody wants their bedroom looking by somebody else, look through your window. usually, we will open the ã9qj? arçj÷ and the shades so wn use the sunshine. i think it is with the good for the environment to save energy. if they built the addition in front of our window we would need to close the window all day so people cannot see from the deck. i really want you to protect our

privacy. thank you. >> thank you. we can hear from the permit holders now. >> my name is mabel huang. i am the new owner of 33 noriega street. i have my mother, mother-in-law, husband, and three children. it is our plan to live there for a long time. we would like to have a comfortable home to live in. my mother's legs are weak. she cannot go out anymore.

she is only staying home. she would love to go out to get fresh air and set up side. -- sit outside. >> my name is ken chung. i am her brother in law. i have several pictures. how does that work? this is a picture of 3030, and this is a picture of their house. notice there is about 2 feet different. here is another picture. where did it go?

here is another picture of the side of our house and their house. different times of the day. i took the picture at 9:00, this one, 12:00, 3:00, 6:00. the back of the house faces north. it never gets the sun hitting the house. i do not know if it is going to block their light, but that is the picture. here is another picture i took at 9:00, it 12:00, 3:00, and 6:00.

all these times, the back of the houses get light. mainly, that is it. commissioner fung: the you have a copy of the plan of your deck so we can see how it is situated in the rear yard, and how big it is? >> we did not bring any plans, but it is supposed to be 7 feet out. vice president garcia: it goes out 7? >> it goes out seven. it is a 25 foot lot. so it is set back. vice president garcia: is 3 feet in on the appellant side and goes up 7 feet? >> that is it. commissioner hwang: i have a question. have you had any conversations or attempted conversations with

your neighbors? do you live in the same house? so miss hwang. >> he is my brother-in-law. my husband talked to me -- talked to him. he said you had best not build a deck. my husband told him we would not bother him or take any privacy. commissioner hwang: the understand the concerns of your

neighbors and do you have any thoughts about how to address them and all blacks -- at all? >> the picture right here -- this is my house, and this is the neighbor's house. we are going to build that right here. from here to her window is about 6 feet. also, my house is lower than their house by 2 feet. if i stand on this line, my head is only up here.

i cannot see from my window to their window. up here, i cannot see anything through the window. commissioner hwang: but you will be able to see into their yard. you will from the deck be able to see into their yard, right? >> yes. commissioner hwang: when i asked if you had any conversations about privacy, light, or shadows, did you consider any way to address that, or did you just say it is not one to be a problem? >> i think we feel that a deck here -- we do not feel it affects the privacy or blocks this light.

all of the back of the yards -- it faces the north. commissioner hwang: you do not think there is an issue? >> what happened was one day her husband talked to the neighbor and said i think if you have any concerns with the deck we could do a few things. one i remember he said was we could put a panel, either a lattice, and that would make it better. he said he would rather we not build any deck. we said what would happen if we put a translucent panels? we would not see each other, but we would still get the light.

he said the same thing -- better we do not build a deck. this deck is only 7 feet extending out, 3 feet cut off on each side. there is not much affect anyway. the square footage is what, seven times, what is left -- commissioner fung: 19. >> that is how big the square footage is. there is a church on the corner that is fully extended because it is commercial. i guess he asked them and said does that bother you, and he said it was there a long time ago. but we have a picture.

this is the furthest part of the church, which is the furthest part of the back yard. it has a stair and fully extended window. i do not think that bothered the neighbor. i do not think it would have any impact. the other guy, the church, is fully extended. their family is mainly family oriented. we're not going to have parties or anything like that. i do not know why we cannot build a little back. -- little dekc. >> -- little deck. >> mr. sider?

>> this appeal concerns a permit that was an over-the-counter approval by the planning department and the building department as well. it is not subject, a deck of this type, nor the interior improvements -- they are not subject to neighborhood notice. the view issues, property value concerns, and loss of privacy -- only the loss of privacy is contemplated by department policies, and then only in an adjunct capacity. the proposal is not extraordinary or unusual. the loss of privacy is something typical in a dense urban environment like san francisco. the discussions just now by the project sponsor with respect to privacy screens i think are intriguing.

beyond that, i would reiterate there is nothing about this proposal that strikes us as extraordinary or unusual. the permit is right. in absence of compromise by the parties involved in measures that could be taken for mutual benefit, such as a privacy screen, we would urge you to uphold the approval of this permit application. commissioner fung: have you seen the permit application? >> i do not have, and i do not believe the city staff has, a copy of the plan. commissioner fung: is there a stair from the deck down to the rear guard? is that in the permit application? >> i do not believe there is. let's take a look. the text on the permit

application -- construct a new deck at rear of building. the approval by our department indicates, as per application and plans, to construct from the ground floor, etc., and construct new deck at rear, maximum 10 feet above grade. no other work. that does imply to me there is no stare involved in the deck proposal. -- stair involved in the debt proposal. commissioner fung: there is no door being added to the wall to access the deck under this permit. >> i would anticipate the inclusion of a door would only be included on the plans. >> it is in the description. it is in the description. add one new bathroom, replace window with sliding door. commissioner fung: that is an

over the counter? >> it is, both by planning and building. president goh: why don't we have plans? it says per application and plans, but we don't have the plans. >> my understanding is one set remains with microfilm at ddi and the other remains with the applicant. they were not provided to us and not available to our staff. i asked miss huang about her brief. she said she was involved -- advised by her architect to show up. but it is the board's choice. if you think you need plans, you can continue. president goh: thank you. >> anything to add?

>> tony greco, department of building inspection. this was an over-the-counter review. it went through all the proper approvals. the valuation, etc. this was straightforward. we're trying to issue more permits over-the-counter. >> thank you. is there any public comment? seeing none, we will move into rebuttal. you have three minutes. >> first of all, i want to clarify the things that happened. the property was showed about early june. they sent us a letter about the permit, the building. they sent us the letter on the building from the department of

the application. when we appealed it, her husband said they came to us. they never came to us before they applied for the permit. when they come to approach us because they receive the letter that we were appealing on the permit. the second thing is that when we purchase the property we already knew that next door is the church. that is not an emergency exit from the second level on the property. also, the church has activity only on sunday, not every day, only sunday morning a few hours. they are not living there. there are no people there in daytime and nighttime. when the people next to us -- it is only a couple feet above from our window. also a 7 ft. extend outside.

you can clearly see what happens in our bedroom. >> amount to say something. two months ago, they made the decision to buy a house with a dick -- with a deck it was important to them. our financial step does today we cannot afford to buy another house. we cannot have another choice if they build that. commissioner fung: what happens if they built a privacy screen along that side of the deck, 6 feet high, so they cannot look back into your bedroom? >> our to house -- i do not think the distance. the distance, i think, is much closer than actually. commissioner fung: i can visualize it. i asked you whether that would help you with the privacy. >> i think the noise will go

through from our bedroom. the noisy. if they entertain people on the deck or have functions and so on. president goh: if this board were inclined to uphold the permit, the deck would be built, and there would be no privacy screen. would a privacy screen be helpful to you? >> i do not think so. president goh: ok. >> we have rebuttals from the permit holder. three minutes, if you have anything further to add. >> the privacy screen we will

probably put up any way, because i think even if she does not want it it will probably, after she sees it, she will feel more confident. but these are family people. they have three elderly, three young kids, to adults. they are not going to be looking at your neighbor's so much. they are busy going to work. the older people are too busy looking after their health. the kids are too busy doing their homework. we will be looking at this. commissioner hwang: i have a question -- commissioner fung: are you finished? commissioner hwang: finisher comments, sorry. >> i just want to -- we build the deck right here.

from the window to her window is 6 feet. i stand on the deck, the 6 ft., i think -- my head is here. i do not think i can see through the window of the bedroom. commissioner fung: i think you can. >> you think you can? i can? commissioner fung: you can't. yes -- you can. yes. commissioner hwang: you were doing multiple changes to your house in this remodel. is the deck going to come off the kitchen? is that the plan backs off the bedroom? >> it is coming off the master bedroom, the biggest bedroom. it is not for parties or meetings.

it is just for her mother in law to go out and get fresh air. maybe if she comes home early enough, she can do it. but it is not for community use or whatever. no barbecues. commissioner hwang: thank you. vice president garcia: as proposed, is the railing solid or open? >> each rail is supposed to be 4 feet. commissioner fung: 4 inch. >> metal tubes, copper tubes. vice president garcia: but it is not going to be solid. >> it will have 4 inch gaps. commissioner fung: he is talking about a picket. president goh: did i hear you say there are no plans? do you have drawings?

>> there is drawings. i am sure the apollo whatever the code is. president goh:-- they follow the whatever the code is. president goh: do you have drawings with you? >> no. president goh: thank you. >> is there any department or a bottle? -- rebuttal? president goh: i have questions for both. mr. sider, would we expect to see drawings in a situation like this with a second story deck? >> i think there are two issues here. the first is the plants that were reviewed and approved when the permit itself was approved. there certainly were plans included. our staff would not have issued

an approval without plans. the second issue and the more critical one tonight is the presence of those plans at this hearing. based on my understanding of your procedures and policies, it is pretty unusual for an appellant to not provide those or not look to provide those. i cannot offer any more insight. commissioner fung: i think it is more the permit holder would provide it to us. >> i stand corrected. president goh: thank you. >> no further questions? the matter is submitted. commissioner fung: we want to start? -- do you want to start? president goh: no, please. commissioner fung: part of the

issue here is that people got used to their rear yard and privacy for all the years they have lived there. the problem is blending in those concerns with what is basically a" compliant solution -- basically a code compliant solution. if people are on the deck, there is bound to be some level of noise or discussions, or kids playing and stuff. i think that is probably of concern to the appellants in seeing a new situation. we would want both neighbors to find some sort of solution they both can accept. it does not appear it is going to happen very quickly.

i would make the suggestion -- if they cannot block out the sound, they can block out the site. they both look to the north. yes, there is a possibility at certain times of the year, the sun as it sets will go a little beyond direct west and they will get a little bit of sun for a very short time in the day. if it was purely a like issue, we would probably be looking at -- light issue, would be looking at a more transparent screening and rail. i do not think that is the situation. i recommend we approved the deck, but with a six-foot high screen along that portion of the deck adjacent to the neighbors.

six-foot high. president goh: i would be inclined to support that as well, but i wonder. it seems strange to me we are talking about this and do not have plans in front of us. what if there are stairs to the rear yard on that side? commissioner fung: all i can go by is the permit application does not say anything about stairs. president goh: but then we have a deck coming out of a bedroom with no egress. commissioner fung: are you referring to a cult situation? you can egress to a bedroom. vice president garcia: i think it is -- president goh: i think it is a 25 foot requirement. it is likely not higher than 25 feet. other comments, commissioners?

commissioner fung: i am going to move to uphold the department with the condition the permit holder add a minimum of a six- foot high screen that is opaque and you cannot see through. >> pardon me? translucent or opaque? commissioner fung: you cannot see through. >> there is no planning code issue with that height. commissioner fung: as long as it is set back 3 feet, it does not

hit the -- it does not a hit the fire rating. not with 7 ft. width. or depth. president goh: adjacent to these neighbors. commissioner fung: we will bring that up later. >> it is to grant this appeal -- it is to uphold the permit on condition that a six-foot high screen you cannot see through be added to the deck with adjacent to the appellant's property, just that. president goh: just that side. >> the deck with the adjacent to appellant-- width adjacent to appellant's property.

vice president garcia: could we have translation on the next agenda? it seems to come up every once in awhile. sorry. president goh: could you read that again? >> the motion is from commissioner fung up hold the permit on condition that a six- foot high screen you cannot see through be added to the deck width adjacent to the appellant's property. commissioner peterson: minimum 6 feet is what he said. minimum 6 feet. maximum of 6 feet? we are hearing from the department it cannot be more than 6 feet. >> my sense is both departments would appreciate some clarity on the maximum so it is not an open-ended condition. >> just 6 feet?