with my neighbors and they did not notify me after i saw that there was a construction going on. i thought this was a patio. i had to leave town and when i returned i was very shocked to see this deck outside my window on the same level as my bedroom. i have just recently besides having to take care of the two 89-year-old parents whiskey's the way for my house, i need to get extra rest because i've been diagnosed with heart disease and i'm very concerned about children playing in the area when my schedule is so hectic and the need to rest at times during the day.

i thought we could settle this before coming as the original plan proposed which was to remove this 8 feet off of my home but instead we have been very willing to compromise and allow a five-foot total from my window. right now, i'm kind of said, i'm having chest pains. i really do need to have as much of an area possible that would allow quiet and allow me to rest when i need to during the day as well as come up with what i felt was as a very reasoned a compromise.

>> we fully understand our neighbors' concerns except the work we have done this completely following the instruction, rules, codes. we understand that we need to be in compliance with the neighborhood. what i'm saying is that there are too many things, we would just draw a line. we did try to solve the problem with them and even willing to

spend extra money to make it work. this will break down the shape of our debt. we need to do a lot of extra work. then the construction costs are not as simple. as far as i know, safety glass cost 200 per piece. that cost at least $600. we will have to revise our plan. that is another $300. if we do everything correctly, why do we have to do things like

this. that is my question. that does not mean that we denying things, we tried to work done something with them, we tried to set direction this. >> would this be unsightly or impractical to have the class only at the portion of the deck or the like well is? >> they raised this concern. we set back two feet when you see outside, you don't see anything blocking. >> was the question clear? it portion of her light well that lines up with the debt, you put this only in that section would that be impractical? >> i think that that is

something they're willing to do. >> we're talking about three pieces of glass. >> when you mention three pieces of glass, is that the entire length of the railing or is that just for the abortion? >> this is the light well and then another piece, says they have created this -- to align >> forget that. the portion of the deck that lines up with the opening to create the light well, would this be impractical or unsightly to put a glass of their and their only? >> i don't think so. >> for i don't think that this would impact the light well at all. >> the question is do you think

it would look bad from your client's perspective? >> the commissioner was interested in hearing the perspective of your client, what do you think that putting the glass in that space that has been discussed will look bad >> you mentioned three pieces of glass, do you need 341 space or three for the entire length. >> can you put this on the overhead?

someone had a picture of the proposal with the glass. if you can show that, maybe i can ask a semi-intelligent question. >> look at what is on the overhead. >> that is the first piece. they have one piece and then another piece. >> in other words, it runs the entire length of the deck. >> there are only three pieces. >> is there another picture we can see the side? yes, there it is. do you understand? >> these are three equal pieces. >> that is because of the --

>> yes. >> you would only probably need one. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> there is no for the department of comments. >> the matter submitted. >> what is issue here is what is equitable for both parties and this is not just one side or the other several things -- or the other. several things come out in this discussion, some of it seems to be a little bit contradictory. starting from the existing configuration, it is clear that based upon the zoning that both parties have some capability of extending full height buildings

that extend from property line to property line in which case the light well becomes what is the light well. these are not intended to be able to have liked an official access across the property line -- light and visual access. the issue is not like to the bedroom. northern exposure must have windows. there might be a window on the south side of the bedroom facing the light well that that is not the issue. the issue is the window into what they call the dining room. what i find contradictory is the comment that she would like quiet.

we will not have quiet with either an open rail or a glass well. if she is interested in quiet, they should put up a solid one that is much higher and perhaps blog not only the visible aspects but also some of the sound. the light well faces west. the light is not impacted at all except perhaps late in the afternoon in the west son and the horizon. i don't even know the conditions around the neighborhood. the question is what is equitable for the permit holder

vs what accommodation can be made. listening to her and her concerns, i would have thought neither a glass or an open rule but a six or 7 foot high is more appropriate. because of that, it would be very minimal. >> there are some contradictions. and the one hand, i think that the two feet additional job in will not have any impact on reducing the noise of children. they will make noise. adults make noise as well. there is noise that will be had on the entertainment space.

i don't see much value in that in terms of addressing those concerns. i don't think that the light is impact, however i think that there is value in neighborly relationships. if you're talking about 600 bucks, that is worth it. if you are taking a principled position, we don't have to do anything you are not required to do. you will have a neighbor that is unhappy. this is a tough call. this is a tough call from where i am sitting. i think that to the accommodation and said that was a good one. we have gone the sanction of planning. these are just some thoughts on i have. >> i would agree, i'm very sympathetic to your situation

and the fact that you want as little noise as possible. i don't see where a 2 ft. not to have any measurable effect. i don't think of this will have a solid real or class will affect the light that much. i wonder if the two parties involved, the appellant or permit holder would benefit from having a discussion about it is either one or the other in the sense that you could probably achieve some reduction in the amount of noise as suggested if you would put 8 solid structure of their which would affect your light more or you could perhaps prevail upon them to improve your light and do nothing. if both sides are agreeable to

have a further discussion about this and knowing what the options are, you'd want to have discontinued and come back another time to see if he could not reach an agreement to keep you as good neighbors and a harmonious situation. we are glad to grant a continuance. >> the other compromise and i think that there are ways to deal with a single piece of glass which is put their that matches the width of the light well, this could be framed appropriately. that is a compromise. >> that would be one thing if you decide to have a continuance, that would be one of the things on the table. that is what i was trying to present. >> do you have any objection if

we get a brief comment from each party as to whether or not they're willing to have a continuance? >> we are open to doing the continuance. we want to have a good relationship and if we have more time, we could have reached a compromise. from our standpoint, we can handle a continuance. >> we have a lot of cases in the next meetings. this would be the next reasonable time. >> well, we have to talk to

them. >> we are suggesting -- >> i don't know how long this case will try again. we are trying to stop their work as soon as possible. we are in the middle of construction. >> we have one more case. would you like to meet outside and see if you can draft a compromise, then no one has to come back. >> ok. we can talk about that. >> take the next case. >> if you have a solution, then there is no continuance. is that right? >> i was thinking the same. >> should we call item number

10? >> calling item 10, appeal number 10-63. the property is that 2015 pacific avenue and this is protesting the issuance of a permit to alter a building, install wood sleepers and decking with 42 inch high glass and steel guard rail on two flat roof portions of the building, constructed a would stare on sleepers over a second-floor landing up to the deck above and provide a handrail along the stair. >> thank you.

we represent the appellants which adjoins the project site on the west side. the work being appealed are two new decks which are located on the third and first floor. both of these are either entirely or partially within the rear yard for this property and would have substantial negative impacts on the part of my client's property. >> were we supposed to get plans at in the hearings? >> yes. mr. brother was calling to provide them. >> let us have that. >> have you provided a copy to

the appellant? >> yes, i did. this afternoon. >> we will not take your time. i understand. >> let me know when you want to proceed. >> what are we supposed have? we are confused with all the copies. do we have one or do we have four? >> thank you.

>> are you ready? >> are they? >> do you have a resolution? >> they have waited this long. i think that we can finish, if you don't mind. >> i think she's not feeling very well. we understand her situation. we will continue to talk with this week. if not, we will come back. >> i will move this case to be continued to next week. >> is this early in the calendar?

>> we have confirmation from the department or the board? >> no. >> how do we know what time or day we should be here? >> we will let you know. >> we agreed to continue. we will have discussion this week to try to find a middle line. >> we are considering next wednesday. >> thank you. >> commissioners, the motion is to continue this until next wednesday to give the parties an opportunity to continue to discuss a resolution. please call the item.

>> we are calling backed 10-60. we are continuing this on august 18th. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> the matter is continued one week. mark your calendars. >> if you do reach an agreement between now and next week, you can let the board know what that agreement is. if you wish, you can have the matter with strong and you can come to the board with that agreement and they will help you. >> ok. >> we are done with item number

nine, now we're back to item number 10. >> i am steve atkinson on behalf of the appellants. these are all within the required guard. we request the board to return a permit for the following reasons. these are on the rear yard and should have required a variance contrary to the interpretation relied upon. even if for some reason this is not required, the appellant should have been given a 30 day notice as is typical for those which are subject to d.r.. we would request that the

hearing be continued because of the fact that the permit t failed. just a few minutes ago to provide a the plans which would have allowed you to consider the impact. such a continuance would be an opportunity for the appellant and the permit holder to try to reach resolution on this matter. the permit the has refused to discuss this. both of the proposed are indisputably in the rear yard. part of the third level is outsiders the rear yard and about 2/3 requires the rear yard. this will be seen on the plans and i have details here. >> he mentioned a continuance. the one to address an issue of

continuance now on the merits or hear from the other side? >> whatever is the board's pleasure. i would be happy to address it now. in some cases, the board likes to hear a case before deciding whether or not it should be continued. the board has only just now seen the plans. >> are you requesting the continuance? >> yes, i am. >> are you counsel for the other side? >> mr. butler. >> i will leave the clock. >> thank you.

>> we are here, we are ready to go. we don't see why this needs to be strung out any longer. we noticed the appellant, the intentions with respect to the deck. the planning department noticed in 2010 for 10 days consistent with the interpretation of the planning code. this process -- this has to do with the plans which we did not get until today. >> this is the tail feathers of a larger project. this goes through the process and mr. atkinson has reached out and plucked one for other and from that one featherhead he would like to begin the process on the whole project because the client did not have 30 days. >> would you address why we did

not get plans until today? >> i did not know the plans were required by the board, i was here for other projects. i was unaware that plans were required. i did not get them to you because i was not here physically to do that. >> i suggest the continuance. >> with no objection, we will go ahead. >> i don't see any continuance but it is up to the majority.

>> we feel prejudiced about these plans but we can discuss this. >> are there any parts of the plans that are confusing to you and give some different light on the case you presented? >> we had been able to go down to dni and we were able to review the plans. this is not just a question of my knowledge and the fact that we have known about this for a long time is irrelevant. my understanding is for the board's understanding of the project rather than the appellants. that is the issue which i believe is the basis for the request for a continuance and for them to try to resolve this.

>> i it bought some of the issues for various work -- so i was not completely -- of the plans to make our decision. >> is there a majority? >> yes, i would feel like we could go ahead without having seen the plans. there are lots of other issues and i did not feel like i was hamstrung by not having plans to refer to. >> i explained the reasons why we believe that the permit should be overturned, i have a diagram appear. can you turn this or how do i do it?