to worry about where they put the furnace? it is not done properly, they do not get a cfc? >> at long as it is inside the unit, i do not think it would be a problem. that should be ok. there may be something we might need a revision four. i am not sure. i would need to go back to the drawing to see it. that is normally where we see them. having it on the roof is a little bit unusual. inside units is normally where we see them. commissioner hillis: can we ask the appellant? if we modify the permit, to remove the water here from the roof, and eliminate any alterations to the skylight, the roof deck, would you agree there is no changes to the roof area? >> without seeing the plans -- commissioner hillis: this is the original permit so you have seen the plans for the original.

>> correct. i have not seen the revision plans at all. commissioner hillis: we are talking about the original. if you remove the roof deck, alterations to the skylight, and the roof deck -- >> meaning keep it in its unit, where it exists? commissioner hillis: are there any other modifications being done. >> the only other thing i am not aware of is any work in the garage area. i do not know how that comes into play with any of these existing items. that is common area, how that falls into play. i have not seen the new plans. commissioner hillis: what is before us is the old permit. >> ok. as long as, without modification, is that going to be appealable? commissioner hillis: no.

this would be the result of your appeal of the permit? -- this would be the result of your appeal of the permit. >> just so you know, the revision permit was issued on january 31. in my opinion, it should have -- it should not have been issued while this matter was still pending by the board. unless you have further questions for any of the parties, that is it. president garcia: president garcia: we have got to lead this out of the wilderness. commissioner hillis: normally, when there is a revision permits, is that appealable? >> normally. and this one would have been as well. normally, when a matter has been before the board, as you alluded

to before -- president garcia: we created that complexity. when the parties came before us, they said they would remove the roof deck. we told them they need a revision. i will not add any comment. commissioner hillis: i would support of holding the original permit but removing the roof deck, the water heater from the roof, and any modifications to the skylight, which i do not think was part of the original permit. commissioner fung: it is. the original says replace and resize the skylights. commissioner hillis: i would say we remove that from the original permit. commissioner fung: i think there is some rationale for that. this could be a civil case given

some of their disagreements. if we remove the skylight, it removes one issue would be a deterrent -- which would be determined by the court of law as to what the roof is in terms of common area or not. i do not think we are going to decide that. and i concur with that. but i would ask the project sponsor that, if we did that, and modified the existing permit, that makes the revision permit moot. whether you would accept that. otherwise, we could all told this permit without certain

things and let the revision permits have a jurisdiction request. president garcia: do you have a question for mr. soriano? >> and you wanted me to respond to that? what we are saying is yes, we would be ok on giving up the revision permit, accepting your modifications to the original permit, which would say, only the existing skylight will remain, no modifications to anything on the roof. commissioner fung: and the deletion of the water heater from the roof. >> yes. everything that commissioner hillis has mentioned i think is

reasonable. president garcia: i am not clear on what we want to redo the replace and resize skylights from the original permit. commissioner fung: just keeping stuff away from the contentious area. commissioner hillis: it seems like the roof is common area. on the ccnr's, it would avoid us having to weigh in on whether that is common area. they are willing to give it up. president garcia: sure. do you want to make your comments a motion? commissioner hurtado? commissioner hurtado: i am in agreement with how it was stated. president garcia: do you want to

make a motion? >> if you are going to modify the permit, you are going to grant the appeal. commissioner hillis: with modifications that eliminates the roof deck, resizing or replacing the skylight, and the water heater on the roof. >> you are striking the scope of work in the permit that is before us that speaks to the skylight? commissioner hillis: correct. >> by removing all work in any potential, an area, the lot number on this permit before signing it, correct? commissioner hillis: hopefully

we can put them on the internet. >> what about the exteriors there to the roof? -- the exteriors stair to the roof? so we are striking the roof deck, and the exteriors stair. and all work on the skylight and water heater. so then, to reiterate, the motion is from commissioner hillis to grant this appeal. the permit is being upheld but

is being condition, modified. the scope -- the following is being struck from the permit -- the roof deck is being struck, the exterior stair to the roof deck is being struck, all work on the skylight and water hero -- and water heater is also being struck. with the finding of the blocking lot number is correct. >> and for the benefit of the department of building inspection, we will withdraw the revised permit so it alleviates confusion. i want to point out that the roof deck will look as it is shown on the original plans. it will stay the same as what has been shown. president garcia: did you want to counterbalance remarks made and put some praise on dbi? [laughter]

>> i do not go on the record contradicting pat buscovich whenever i can avoid it. i have nothing but praise for dbi. >> on the motion to grant the permit with all the changes being struck -- commissioner fung: aye. president garcia: aye. commissioner hurtado: aye. >> the permit is upheld with all those conditions and that finding. thank you. >> we can move on to item eight, appealed number 12-005. the property is at 2754 through 2756 beckers street, protesting the issuance to kevin robinson and jake vink a permit to alter

a building -- wide in a garage door, reconfigure walls at back of a garage, electrical upgrade for condo conversion, new insulated windows at sides and rear, remodeled kitchen and bath, add new bath, and refurbish existing penthouse. we'll start with the appellant. you have seven minutes. >> good evening, members of the board. my name is jeff -- is geoff wood. hopefully, we have an easier appealed to figure out here. the permit holder wants to do mostly a lot of interior work, which we do not have any real objection to. "we are concerned about is the -- what we are concerned about is the plan for the roof deck.

by way of introduction, we did try to meet with the permit holder before finding the appeal to resolve our issues. we got close, but i guess were unable to reach agreement. we have three main concerns. most of them involve loss of privacy, air, and sunlight. to start with, this is a copy of the permit holder's plan for the roof deck. i would just point out a couple of things on this plan. the first concern involves the north part of the roof deck.

you can see a dotted line at the lower bottom of this picture. the roof rail baekeland is a 30 inch solid wood rail -- the roof rail they planned is a 30 inch solid wood rail. it has been changed to 32 inches from 36, another 6 inches. my objection is i am the property owner on that side of the roof of their property. i have a back down below. sunlight, air, and white will be blocked by the roof rail. it is right at the edge of the light. what i have asked them to do --

the simplest way would be to move it back about a foot and a half, so it is 5 feet from the property line. they can keep the same configuration and want to have on the rest of the roof rail. that would give me the sunlight the roof rail would cut out. this is a north facing back, so sunlight is very important. the deckhouse right now blocks a big part of the sunlight we get on the deck. we are really concerned about adding more features that would block the sun. i think that is asolution. it does not really reduce the size of their deck much, and it is cheaper than reconfiguring it at the location it was, because that is within a 5 foot

fire zone and would have to be safety glass. second concern involves a skylight on the south side. that a concerned their privacy is disturbed. the bedroom is right there at the top of the third floor, right there in their building. the roof deck -- people on the roof deck can look at the dressing room. the bedroom is on one side. there is a bathroom there. they are concerned about privacy. the plan shows the barbecue up against the light will. they are not sure they want to smell the barbecue sauce and so forth while they are in their house.

that will also affect anybody else on that. it is going to be a condo. there is another unit down below, and on top of the building. our suggestion is to move the roof rails back about 2 feet, so it is even with the deckhouse, as shown on the dotted line on this plan. our third concern is the roof on the east side of the deckhouse -- the plans show very little improvement to take place. they really are not going to use that portion of the deck, but they want access to it. they show a new door and stair going from the deckhouse to that

portion of the roof. i am concerned that use their -- there will cause the same problems in lack of privacy and so forth on my deck down below. and the same with the people on the other side of this property. their bedroom privacy will be invaded, if that part of the deck is used. we would like no use of the deck. i think that is what the permit holders intend, but they show this new door astaire. the access could be provided by a little gate like they have shown on their plan. this line is an existing date they have proposed. we would like to have them put another date of their -- another

gate there, so they have access to the east side of the roof. they do not need to add any improvements. in summary, we have three requests we would like to have. we have solutions for those three areas that we are concerned about. we are in a neighborhood which recommends that neighbors cooperate. we think this is something that would be helpful for the neighbors. thank you. >> thank you. we would like to hear from the permit holders. >> i am kelly condom.

-- condon. i am the designer of this project. the topics on the appeal or that we were blocking both sides. the neighbor has a rear yard. he is on a corner lot. he enjoys more exposure to light and air than most people in san francisco do by virtue of that fact. the neighbor on the other side has the identical light well. he told us his facing windows are in a bathroom and a closet. that is the way all of these lots are laid out. our building is. there is a room with a sink and a shower, and the other room is a closet. we did meet with them, and each time they asked for another thing. we think you are going to build a deck on the back of your roof, and these stairs we had never

even heard of. we had no intent to build something we have not applied for permits for. we have stairs coming down out of the penthouse because it is 18 inches up in the air to maintain drainage on the roof. we are never going to go out there unless something is wrong with the roof. that is why we have not made changes. we did not feel these were valid concerns. commissioner fung: are you finished? >> yes. also note that if you look at the photos -- should i put this here? this is the neighbor that just spoke. this right here is the end of his house. he does not have a light well.

that is the back of his house. also note the existing her putt on both our neighbors are 30 inches tall. -- the existing parapet on both our neighbors are 30 inches tall. this is the view from our roof, which will not be building an illegal back on. that is not a light well. that is his front yard. commissioner hillis: you have a light well? >> we have a light well, but they do not. commissioner hillis: is it on the property where his building is? or is it on open space? >> it is right here. commissioner hillis: what is on the other side of your light well? >> his building. the back of his building lined up right in the center of the light well.

it has a roof that slopes down. by the time you get to our second level, he has fully enclosed our light well. commissioner hillis: so his issue with the rail on the back blocking his sunlight -- >> which would follow our parapet. the reason the low were 30 inches are solid -- he wanted us to move a foot in. we would still have to fire grade the railing. then he wanted it to have glass 5 feet in, which is in the way of the door. in the floor plan, you will notice we have been asked by -- >> face it the way you would look at it. >> we had a meeting with the department of building inspection before applying to find a way to be able to keep

the existing spiral staircase as our means of egress. the concern they had was will be you -- will be lower unit have access to the roof? we need it to only have access to the upper unit. so we have put a metal gate around the top of the stairs. if i move the railing in, we would not be able to get to and from the deck. president garcia: would you go back to photograph two? show me where someone would be standing to take pictures in photograph three. >> this is better to show you on the floor plan. it is taken from the front of a -- in front of the building with a wide angle lens. photograph three is taken from the back of the building.

i am standing right at the edge to get a picture of the back, as far as i could without falling. commissioner fung: and the height of the deck of the neighbor, the appellant -- >> their deck is over the top of the garage. it is on the second level of their plot. commissioner fung: 1 full floor below the top of your roof? >> it is two story is below our roof. -- stories below our roof. >> any other questions, commissioners? thank you. mr. sanchez? scott sanchez: i do not have

much to add. the project is principally permitted and compliant. non-neighborhood notification is required. the appellant property is located to the south. given the location of the south, they would not feature any direct sunlight into that like well. -- light well. the deck is set back from the property line and matches with the light well. when they step back a few feet from the railing, he will not have a direct line into the adjacent property. the appellant has created concerns about privacy, about the potential impact of the grille. i did not even know if there is a requirement to show the gril ol on there. if it were someone to bring a charcoal grill onto the roof, i do not know that would need to be shown on any plan. these are items for the board to

consider in your decision making tonight. i am available for any questions. thank you. >> thank you. mr. duffy? >> i do not have much to add either. the real hyper code would be 42 inches high. -- the rail height per code would be 42 inches high. i do not see a problem with the gas grill. i think it is far enough from the property line to make code. i am available for any questions. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? president garcia: what you think

about it? >> i am tina bartlett hinckley -- president garcia: how many people intend to offer public comment? three minutes. >> i am tina bartlett hinckley, and i live at 2775 hilbert street. hopefully you received a letter from me. you will see that the lot is on baker street. i am on filbert street. it isn't unusual cottage at the rear of the law. when this building was offered for sale, they did tout the opportunities of a roof deck. the plan was that the upper unit would get the roof deck and the lower unit would get the backyard. i did go and see the property, and when i went up there i was

horrified that i could look out of the back -- can you see this? you can look from my bed, from those windows, directly into my bedroom. here is another picture, right from my bed. my concern is that with the plan where they are asking to have two doors in that penthouse -- the existing penthouse is basically a stair that comes up. once it is a condominium, what they will do is put a roof deck in the back. the current owners may say they are not going to do it. but i have a picture of a roof deck that was put on illegally across the street. the staircase goes down to both units. one person gets one side. the other person gets the east side. they have the no. views as well.

i do believe in live and let live. in my neighborhood, when i bought my house, it was a 2000 square foot house. everyone has said we need open space. next door, to the east side, the planning commission granted a variance so that this building was extended. it comes right up against the house. right across the street, they were given permission to go upper. i am fumbling for papers. my view directly across the street has been blocked. basically, the value of my house is my garden. i would like to be able to keep my windows open so i can look out into the garden. i have privacy so people will not look directly into my bedroom from a roof deck. i do not see why they