for me in terms of its ability to fit in within the context. it is not overly done and yet it is not real close to what is there. on a personal note, the reason i bring up the thing about the deck is it is not something i find very suitable, especially in a less dense area, where the yards are larger, there? in the rear. i am not enamored with roof? in general, and -- with roof decks in general. if they are a limited size similar to what one may require as a open space by the planning code. in this instance, that would be

somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 square feet. what swings me in terms of my final determination here is the fact that this site has had so much process and i think that was part of the problem. the process that occurred before was to maximize and therefore createed a situation where the numbers -- neighbors who were there previously versus those who were there tonight wound up probably with a very protracted and therefore difficult process in dealing with the previous developers. it [unintelligible] this particular proposal.

given that level of process, given the fact that nobody responded to the notice, to make, that was very important and was telling. i am prepared to support this permit, but i would like to see a reduction of the usable roof deck in the front. >> i have been undecided about how i came out on this case until i heard commissioner fung speak on this case. i have seen this type of roof? -- sha'reroof decks. because of the way they are constructed, i do not believe it would infringe on privacy. i am also swayed by the fact that it is far away.

it is 100 feet. it is not directly in front of any windows or anything like that. that is the nature of living in san francisco. so i would be in favor of commissioner hillis' position is -- which is to uphold the permit as it is. and also the additional fact that there has been a lot of process around this permit and we have to reach a resolution. it is unfortunate that no one attended the d.r. hearing. there was the opportunity to do that. it is unfortunate that may be the neighbors did not communicate about someone being present their but the process was available and it was not used. at this point, i do not feel we have any other choice but to

uphold the permit. >> i would move to deny the appeal. >> ok. >> we have a motion to upheld this -- of polled this permit on the basis that it is code compliant. -- uphold the permit on the basis that it is code compliant. the vote is 3-1. this permit is upheld as is on the basis. thank you. president hwang: i will call the

next item. appeal no. 12-055. subject property is at 99 marietta drive. protesting the issuance on april 13, 2012 to lease a burrell -- lisa burell to alter a building. we're going to start with the appellant's council and you have seven minutes. >> thank you and good evening. president hwang and committee. i represent the appellant, mary maxon.sh she is on assignment at the white house in d.c. but i in august she will be coming back to her home at 95 murieta drive

-- marietta drive. the permit holder lives on the peninsula. she has a real estate background. she is the sole title owner of the property in question, 99 marietta drive and the issue raised is the appropriateness of a decking system she intends to hang on the back of her property. i'm going to try to limit my comments to about five minutes and then mary will speak as well. you can see that the decks in question are close to the adjoining property in level owned by dr. maxon.

the houses are cheek and jowl. i have attached to the brief and exhibit c the representation of the sideline that would be afforded anyone standing outside on the proposed the deck and looking into dr. maxon's better. the bid to -- the depicted rectangle is her bed. most of the room would be clearly visible. this is an attempt to illustrate what mary, if she were in her bedroom, would see. if she entered the room and looked out at a time when the deck next door, as proposed, was being used by her neighbor.

ms. burell's brief was drafted -- drafted by the architect. he says the decking does present if you and obstruction problem but he concludes this is the city and it is dense, tough luck. no one should expect any privacy or views in san francisco. he also makes a couple of other arguments. first he states the proposed decking system is consistent with the maryland lab -- mira loma neverland standards. this demonstrates quite the opposite. there is a letter that was offered by the mira loma

improvement club, signed by the president of that organization, cassaundra davis. i believe that is in your packet. i want to draw your attention to language in that letter, suggesting that the board of permit appeals consider the modification of the building permit to eliminate or at least to minimize the proposed second floor that is the upper deck that looks into the bayview window of dr. maxon's home while allowing the first floor or lower deck to be constructed. mr. zapone is therefore wrong about the compliance of this design with the neighborhood standards. it would represent a very substantial aberration and very

likely more than that. if it is granted in this instance, it may serve as a very unhappy precedent for future improvements, if you want to call them that, in this neighborhood. he also contends that mary projected all modification proposals made by ms. burrell. she did suggest a couple of suggestions. we never, ever categorically rejected any of them. my first act as the lawyer for dr. maxon was on the day i was retained to telephone ms. burrell, suggest a meeting, and try to work out this issue voluntarily. mrs. burrell responded by saying she did not want to me with a lawyer. we all understand the reputation that lawyers have in some circles but it was a problem for

us. there was no way to get her in the room with the design in front of us and work something else -- something out. we find ourselves in front of you tonight. unfortunate. i should make it clear that we're tonight still willing to consider alternatives but we believe that whatever alternative might be adopted by the board or agreed to by the parties, it must eliminate the problem and the prospect of a degrading of the few and the privacy at the second level. i want to bring to your attention an e-mail that ms. burrell wrote to dr. maxon's house tenant, house sitter, i guess you'd call him in october

of last year. i will read it to you and then i will show you the mail itself. it is died -- dated october 23, 2011, 9:00 a.m. >> i appreciate your e-mail. we certainly do not want to add to mary's stress. i understand and hear your concerns and i assure you that we will have permits in place soon. the deck work you saw, pipes, etc.. to put a dent in your neighborhood consensus and permits and also we would not think of putting on a deck that would in any way interfere with mary's view. i am precariously close to over speaking. i will sit down and let dr. maxon address you. >> good evening. my main -- name is mary maxon. i am on temporary assignment in

washington, d.c. and my detail and snacks monsoor will be returning permanently to san francisco in august. i brought -- bought my home in 2009 after looking at approximately 75 houses. when i walked in, i was struck by the view and by the privacy afforded by a second story bedroom. it was because of these premier features, the views, privacy, and security that i bought the house. i am a single woman and privacy is very hard to find. it at very lucky and i found it. -- i got very lucky and i found it. the construction on the top floor would compromise might privacy. it would build a walkable structure. and with the threat of people walking and seeing me in my bed, it would be disconcerting. >> you have an opportunity to

continue your statements in rebuttal. the time that was allotted to you and your lawyer has now elapsed. >> we can hear from the permit holder now. >> i have handouts. >> what are they? >> diagrams of the deck showing the depth. >> that would be helpful. >> you can give them to mr. pacheco.

>> in the architect for the project. i would like to prepare my rebuttal. thank you for hearing as this evening, board. i would like to start off by saying these decks were designed and reviewed and permitted within the guidelines. the attorney for the neighbor stated that i was not in compliance with residential design guidelines. i believe i was. i live in the neighborhood. i have -- i wrote for several years, the article for the improvement " discussing design matters pertinent to that

neighborhood. my family is original note -- owners and we have a lot of experience pertaining to those houses in particular. this deck, what happened is there was an original permit issued for interim remodeled. my client met with the owner. they have recently purchased the home and have a new baby and were anxious to get into the house and hired me to design interior remodel of the interior spaces. that project began during the course of that construction. we noticed they had discussed wanting to have decks. my client had met with a neighbor and they discussed the remodel over a few beers, i was told. there was no issue at the time. there was some dialogue between the clients but when we started the construction, we noticed this was an unusual house. the back third of the house was

the -- the fleming when perpendicular to the rear which allowed for the construction of cantilevered decks. it precludes using cantilevers. they wanted that, the code allows for very large tech. this is a prayer sloping deck. -- rear sloping deck. it is three levels off the ground, also supporting. the planning code has an exemption for cantilevered? parikh since we were -- cantileereevered decks. this is to minimize the impoact. -- impact. you do not have any of the impact of eight by eight posts and heavy beams and the structure that would be

necessary to support a deck that is three levels high. the -- appellant made statements there is no other deck at this level in her brief. this is not true. i showed photographs in my brief that four of the eight neighboring houses have decks much larger on the second and third levels. my client also has living space. her kitchen is open to the family room which is off on this balcony. it is a balcony. it is a smaller living space over a larger space. it is almost 60% less than the allowable for planning code. that was a voluntary reduction. as soon as we heard there was an appeal filed, and i came up with

a design concept to clip off one of the corners of the decks. the appellate rejected it. she said she would rather have us remove the deck or remove to the other side of the building which is impractical. there is a bay on the other side which would give is a small, and accessible space. i came up with other solutions where we would put the deck and added a wing wall and those rare acceptable. -- unacceptable. they wanted modifications. those options were submitted one week over the -- before the brief was filed. it was not until the evening before that i got an e-mail from my clients say they wanted to proposing -- they were proposing solutions. they wanted me to meet with them and build mockups and i would

meet the deadline to respond. it took almost from 5-17 is when we submitted the second proposed solution to 6-7, june 7 to get a response. i understand they have some personal problems but it was at the 12th hour that we have that final resolution that they may consider it. it was not anything definite. we have letters from the immediate next door neighbor in support of our project which i believe you have. i met with them this afternoon. she was shown sketches of the final plans of the design and she reviewed this house in her letter. she states the houses that have decks on the rear have living space on the rear. she would like us to minimize the deck on the upper level. the deck is 60% less than the

allowable. that is quite a bit of a voluntary reduction. and also, i do have a long history writing on design guidelines and residential issues in the neighborhood. the exhibit to have in front of you, the first one -- the dark area shows how large that dec is. this is a layout of how much space that is. enough space to hold a grill, the two chairs, and maybe a table. the size of this deck is off the

living area. my client has a small child and she wants to be able to work in her kitchen and look at the living room. >> i have a question. does your client's property have a backyard? >> " yes. -- yes. >> i want to hear about these privacy screens. i would like to hear it again. i am looking at your hand out.

i am seeing some proposed screens at the top. with that completely screen -- >> a minimal screen of the property line. it would block out all be used to her bedroom. >-- views in and out. someone would have to stand with intent, even without that, to be looking into her bedroom. any configuration or use of the dekema people will not be looking in her space. this would eliminate the possibility. >> i do not understand -- is that the drawing above? and then the back side here.

>> this would maximize the use -- views, not having a full height walls. just enough to block the views when you are standing on the deck of her window. she is standing on the deck looking sideways. you still -- >> got it. thank you. >> what rooms are those? >> there is the kitchen and what is the other room? >> the family room. the remodel moved the bedrooms to the next level down. these houses right here, that is a garage level. i believe she had a garage level. >> thank you. mr. sider.

>> good evening again. dan sider with department staff. i will try to keep my remarks brief. this is a modest project. there are very few projects in the planning department, very few permits that can be approved as of right over the counter. this project was one of them. part of the reason for that is is a cantilevered system which has fewer impacts than conventional, independently supported? -- decks. they are at most 7 feet deep and they provide 3 foot side setbacks.

in response to an issue, it is important to note that this is not what we would view as a precedent-setting case. the president has already been set. there are a number of decks elsewhere on this block. they are i believe much larger. then what is being proposed here. i suggest that if there were allowed the construction of an addition to this property, an enclosed, habitable space, that is not the case. as we have noted in other cases, we do live in a dense urban environment and this modest proposal is for much in keeping with that reality without

imposing any unusual or extraordinary conditions or situations on the adjacent properties or neighborhood. given these factors, we would ask that you deny the appeal and uphold the permit and we would be happy to answer any questions you might have. president hwang: thank you. is there any public comment on this item? no public comment. we will move into rebuttal. we'll start with the appellant. >> decks are common on my street. there are houses annotated as having large third level decks and each of them has a so-called

reverse for plan for the -- i ask the people who owned the homes if there decks have views into the buildings and they said no. they pointed out to me when i showed them my house that we have quite a different construction in the bay window and it would allow different view considerations. >> i would like to draw the board's attention to ms. burrell's own words which could influence that decision. together with the concessions her architect has made. there are ways to eliminate the problems we have -- that we foresee. again, lisa said she would not think of putting on a deck that would interfere with mary's

views. as far as the city opposing position goes, it is almost tragic that the city would impose mechanically a ruling or suggested ruling that is contrary to the interests of both parties. ms. burrell is -- has said she is willing to consider alternatives that would eliminate problems that we see and it would -- we are convinced that this is a speculative efforts on ms. burrell's part. she cani am happy to answer anyr questions. >> which of thewo