>> i am sorry? i did not hear that. >> which of the medications -- mitigation stood your client favored? >> i have four pieces of paper i have looked out over five minutes. i do not understand there are two distinct schemes. >> one was the corner, presented to you previously. then he had a variation which added the little. >> we ask t make a mock up so we could take a look at what they had in mind. when we take a look out, we will

know if it is satisfactory or not. they declined to do that because he was out of town and ms. burrell added birthday party -- had a birthday party. we can come up with a solution now but the answer is that either compromise would be accessible. >> just wanted to respond why we did not get back to them. it was over a month and they responded to the day i was supposed to be submitting my

appeal. to delay that would have meant missing the deadline. it so happened we had already planned, and neither of us were available on the weekend. this is a modest approval for allowable. we met all of the requirements. it was with and all of our entitlements to build a deck off of her family room. she also has living space, she has a family room that has a small balcony off of it. and enough space for a barbecue. it is very modest. we tried to meet with them before and we did not have a response.

the neighborhood has much larger decks to out it. you are allowed to have 9 feet deep, this is very small. >> could you address the offer to work out a resolution today? >> he has seen that. >> is that something that is still on the table? >> es. -- yes. we would prefer the one bang off the corner -- one off the corner. >> anything further from the departments? commissioners, the matter is yours. >> given what we heard, i would like to give the parties an

opportunity to in the time we have here go out in the hallway and resolve it. if that is not possible, because you need a mockup, maybe we could continue this to another day with no further briefing. that is what i would be proposing unless others feel differently. >> i would a little bit. this is a very modest. i am sympathetic to the issue of trying to find some compromise that addresses some of the privacy issues. i do not think a mockup is required to figure out whether one can see into a room by turning 90 degrees around.

i think we can determine that by looking at the plan and what makes sense. whether it is more appropriate for the parties to come away with a solution, i am more supportive of us -- more support above that. but i am leaning toward, if they went to put the wall, that is added protection. it is up to the commissioners. >> i would like to hear from the permit holder what a mock of what evolved. is that a significant undertaking -- mock up would involve. is that a significant undertaking?

could you address that? >> time and money. i agree with president fung -- vice president fung: vice- president. >> i think the drawings are sufficient at this point. >> can we encourage you to go in the hallway while we're on item 10? there may be people may not want to hear this again. i would encourage you to find a resolution. it is a fairly simple matter. >> we would consent to either solution for both solutions. as far as the order tonight goes, the second level bedroom deck be refashioned in a way

suitable for the needs of ms. burrell so long as the configuration eliminates the possibility of a view from that deck into her bedroom. that would be sufficient for our purposes. >> that gets confusing. is it somebody leaning over the deck? i think you should figure out what that is. president hwang: if you listened between the lines, some people up here would rather make a decision tonight. if you could take the opportunity, i would urge you to. >> president fung, you do not need a motion what we do that. president hwang: shelley move on to calling the next item?

vice president fung: ms. burrell, does your child need to go to sleep? can we go through this portion? ok. president hwang: thank you for asking. i was thinking that, too. >> i would like to come to a conclusion right now. we think it is a solution. it is not 100%, if you lean over or some other way, you may be able to see in but it reduces the ability to see into the neighbor's house. we are in a dense neighborhood. a neighbor's below can look into their bedroom. president hwang: are you opposed

to having a conversation? vice president fung: we were talking about a thin wall. ok. president hwang: on going back to calling item number 10. parties of #nine are encouraged to meet in the hallway. appeal 12-063, and nathaniel mcfadden. the property is at 3139-3141 g ough street. permit to alter a building, a vertical addition of a new full third floor rear addition decide existing sun room. we will start with the appellant. you have seven minutes.

>> good evening, my name is janet miers and this is my partner nate mcfadden. we are the neighbor north of this project. we have been in the homeowner for 18 years. this process has been stressful and bewildering. it has been a learning process. it has been a difficult process. we are living in a situation where we have a home next to us that will be doubling in size from a two story building to a four story building. it has a negative impact on our property. we will lose significant light to the interior of are flat. we have an unusual configuration where we have sanded windows that look out onto a light well.

-- seven windows that look out onto a light well. we are concerned about the loss of privacy. it has taken us a while to adjust to the fact this is going to go forward. it is overwhelming but we have come to a place where we would like to suggest modifications to lessen the negative impact to our property. if we can approach and provide some plans and the suggestions on how we might -- >> heavy provided them? >> just to give you a flavor, these are three of the windows that will be impacted. >> to you have a copy for the

planning department? >> we have extra up here. >> i can do that. >> there might be an extra. >> this is just a flavor, three of the windows that will be impacted. these are major living areas in our unit. they are not circulation areas. it is our dining room, kitchen, and our daughter's bedroom. as well as our back yard impacted by this. what we would like to suggest, and we hope they will accept, the windows that are facing our property into the light well, they beat translucent so they

cannot see into our kitchen and our daughter's bedroom. we would also like to propose that there be some modification to help us not feel constricted. we are going to be looking at all of these windows at a wall. what we are hoping they will agree to it is to push that back and by moving their staircase. they can actually push back that wall to give us a breathing space to preserve some of the southern light that comes into our we unit. -- our unit. we would also like to ask that the railing that faces into the light well be pushed back so there will not be a view down

into our kitchen and into our daughter's bedroom. these are the things we are hoping. i know they had indicated they were not willing to make further changes. past what the planning department suggested or mandated they do. but we feel like these are minor. we had an architect and look at it and he drew these up for us and felt it was inexpensive and minor changes that could help mitigate the impact to us. this is impacting the quality of our life and our home because it cuts off southern exposure to our home through seven windows. it is also impacting our property value. we had a real to come over and give us an estimate of the impact.

with those factors, we hope they will be willing to at least meet as part way to help mitigate some of these impacts. >> i put down on the overhead display of the railing, which you can see here, which looks a down into our well and has a visual access to all seven windows as well as our daughter's bedroom window, which is approximately here. what we would like to suggest is that that raving be pushed back somewhat -- railing be pushed back somewhat. >> the window frosting and the reconfiguration of their stares to allow for a little more of visual space. we are constricted in the

backyard as well. there is now going to be a while so we are feeling increased upon with this plan. we are looking for her ways to not feel constricted. -- for ways to not feel constricted. >> on the third floor, you are asking them to increase the size of their light well to mirror your light well. on the second floor, accommodating the changes? moving the stairs around? >> exactly. you would see the impact of that change. >> it does not change the footprint. >> they will not lose closets. there is a minor impact to the interior functionality by doing this. the those closets are preserved.

as is the landing at the top of the third floor. >> something has to give. there is something that is being reduced, whether it is the kitchen. that is all right. they know better than we do. we can hear from then on -- them on the proposal. >> we will hear from the permit holder now. >> my name is jeff gibson representing the project for the

permit holder. to begin with, i would like to take issue with the way this appeal is unfolding. it is unfair to prevent alternate versions like this with new demands, new suggestions, new alterations' this late in the game. this has been a long process. it was noticed one year ago. thre wa -- there was a dr filed. now what is a year later and at this time, we have a paper with red marks on them. it is difficult for us to do our job when we see these things at the last minute. in general, this has been a well reviewed project. it went through extensive review by aaron stark and david lynsey. we made a lot of compromises to the original project, shrinking

everything in relation to anticipated concerns before they filed their dr. from our point of view, we cannot make more changes at this point. we are compromising on a compromise on a compromise. every time we stand up, we have to give up something else. the project has been reviewed and found in full compliance with the residential design guidelines. 7-0 with the dr. let me address the conditions of this project. there is a typology at work in the marina with these buildings that are paired with large white

walls facing each other. that is a shared amenity between the properties. sometimes there is a small light well facing one on the other side of the property. there is a pairing that was done and it is a great urban pattern. i love it. fantastic. that pattern breaks down. this pattern stops working. they reside in an anomaly building. it is a very unusual. our building has a large light well on one side.

what we have been asked to do is make an hour glass building where we have to have a large light well on one side. and then at one and another side. every time -- let me put up another graphic. this is a diagram we did of the setbacks of the chipping away. this is a compromise on the compromise. through careful review, we loved a lot of their comments. they speak on behalf of the urban typology. these yellow areas, those demonstrate to the areas where we have pulled back from the original proposal and are

providing massive light wells. especially this one. that is adjacent to the appellant's property. take a look at that. does that look like any you have seen in a typical building? that is a massive amount of space given up for almost no benefit to my clients. this is the north side of the building. in general, all of that space we have chipped away is for the appellant's benefit. we have some windows facing that. after the hearing, we had a phone conversation with steve williams, offered to do frosted windows. they never responded to us. it feels like a drag to the process out.

there is another opportunity to spend a few more months slowing the project down. we have given a lot already and we cannot afford to keep revising the plans come at chipping away 6 inches here, 3 feet of air combat a cursory review of this last-minute proposal -- 3 feet there, acres review of this last-minute proposal, that is the absolute code minimum. it is ridiculous. you're not going to be able to move into these flats. what they are drying up does not work. they do not understand why and they do not care, they're trying to push the project in further and further. it is not viable and it is unfair at this point. i think this is an appropriate project. it fits with the style of the

street. it fits with the masting of the street. there are a number of four story buildings already. they all follow this a form of having a small penthouse element to it that is set from the front and back which is what we are proposing. really minimizing that impact. i would request you up hold a permit as it has been issued. i think it should stand. thank you for your attention. >> dan snyder, as we have heard,

this is the project that was reviewed by the planning commission. there were four requests in total that were part of a hearing at which this project was approved. that occurred in november. the commission granted its unanimous approval. it did condition that approval of the setting back in the northwest corner of the property 3 feet the deck. i think it is labeled as the west deck. the specific concerns from the appellant are adequately addressed. the planning commission felt they were adequately addressed. concerns about the light lost, the project provides a matching light well, maintaining

reasonable access to light and air. there were concerns regarding the backyard edition and how it might lead to a loss of air flow. it might box in the rear yard. the proposal only extends about four additional feet into the yard. the property itself is a small lot. it is a key lock. -- key lot. that the lands to a less than ideal situation. concerns about the loss of property, this concern persists despite the commission's reduction. as we have talked about, at this is a privacy issue, which is very much expected and par for

the course in the urban environment of san francisco. these impacts to do not rise to a significant or unusual level. this is a code-complying project. it comports to our guidelines. our staff worked tirelessly to hone their project into one that we do support and the commission supported. in keeping with these actions, and where we feel the project is, we are asking you deny the appeal and apple the permit and i would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

>> it says the maximum planning code and it shows by highlighting what is being chipped away. my question is, would that have been on its face approveable? that maximum build out? >> it would comply with the terms of the code on a cursory review. many of the guidelines would be addressed. i am inclined to say based on the review that not all the requirements of the guidelines would be met, there are provisions relating to a matching or somewhat matching light wells. some of that the yellow areas are those matching light wells.

while it is difficult to address that the hypothetical question, my best response would be that if the project were to be filed will -- with structures in that area, we would be less than inclined to recommend to the commission approve the project. >> is there any public comment on this item? please step forward. mix -- i have lived in san francisco 20 years. my wife and i have been neighbors 15 years. my daughter is nine years old.