vice president goh: thank you. >> thank you. vice president goh: oh, dr. levinson, when was your house built? >> in 1926. vice president goh: thank you. i will start, but i have not landed anyplace. ibm and pressed by the new permit holder's long list of concessions and changes they have made to the building. and yet, dr. levinson's

building, it is clear it will be affected by having tall buildings next to it, and his buildings is one of those shallow but very wide 1920's and very precious to many of us historic structures, so i hate to see a compromise by new construction. on the other hand, they have done a lot to accommodate the neighbors. i am very troubled by the trees, although i do not know what jurisdiction we have. like i said, i have not landed anywhere. these are my preliminary thoughts. i will hear from my fellow commissioners. commissioner fung: there are

several issues here. the one issue related to the trees, given the age of when it was built, i do not think this is something -- it becomes more of a civil issue between the property owners. this particular species that they are intending to plant at the property line should attain the height that she mentioned, but it will take a little while. no matter how fast growing it is, it will take a little while. the real question is that here was an empty lot, and people got used to it, and whether it is an

issue, it is also an issue that one gets used to in an area. therefore, it is hard to accept. i feel that there is some level of compromise. i feel that the neighbors should have taken it out of the yard. for our experience and history, what was offered was quite substantial. they chose not to take it, and i understand. i understand the permit holder's desire not to put that on the table. i find that the particular building and its siting are

consistent for a new structure given the site area and the neighborhood. it was designed with some sort of sensitivity towards the neighbors. it is and what i call sensitive. it may not be totally acceptable to the neighbors, but as a professional and seeing the types of cases that we have seen, i find it to be somewhat sensitive, and therefore, i would support the denial of the appeal. president peterson: i will go next. i understand that change is difficult, and yet, these are some of the biggest blocks. i live in a 1920's home and so

does my neighbor. this is 21st century living. i think curtains can easily solve the problem here, so i would be inclined to agree with commissioner fung's statement. commissioner hwang: i think many of the concessions that were made it sounds like were in good faith, and i will not repeat many of the comments previously made by my fellow commissioners, and i will also be inclined to uphold the permit and deny the appeal. commissioner garcia: i would agree with those who want to deny the appeal and uphold the permit.

the two people who watched these proceedings who live and other parts of the city and with what goes on in san francisco will be amazed that someone is talking about their privacy in their backyard being compromised " by windows 80 feet away from there's -- compromised by windows 80 feet away from theirs. it is consistent. it was brought before the commission for discretionary review. discretionary review was not taken. i think this is a very nice project, and i think several commissioners have addressed what for me was the principal issue in this whole time, and that is the fact that you get used to what you have. a vacant lot there, and all of these people better going to be affected by this project got

used to it. i think they have lost sight of the fact that vacant lots belong to someone, and they have their rights, also. at any rate, having heard from the other commissioners, i would move that we deny the appeal and uphold the project. >> it complies with code and the residential design guidelines. president peterson: mr. pacheco? secretary pacheco: commissioner

hwang, commissioner garcia, commissioner fung, vice president goh, president peterson. the idea is approved. president peterson: could you call item 10? secretary pacheco: a permit it to alter a building. jurisdiction was granted june 9 of this year. president peterson: we will start with you, the appellant. >> the landlady did not turn in her statement on time, and at the jurisdiction meeting, she did not turn your statement in

on time. if you remember, she also kept us waiting 1.5 hours because her architect did not show up on time, so i am not sure what i need to be saying here beyond what i wrote before the first board, the jurisdiction board, and now you. i realize it's some of this sounds a bit fantastical answer korea, but that is my life -- i realize that some of the sounds a bit fantastic " -- fantastical and surreal. i stand behind it all. i do not care how ludicrous it sounds. that is what is going on. and there are people in the audience, and i am just dying for them to come up here and deny those events, especially when there are so many witnesses, and if you're a member of the jurisdiction trial, the landlady somewhat

tacitly acknowledged the death threats. she was there. she called the police. i was there. my roommate was there. the police were there. the neighbors were all watching. it is a real event. i am not making that up or exaggerating it. i called the police last year over more problems. that was a couple of months before the landlady's contractor got his death threat, and he talked to the first or twice. they are discussing their behavior in public at boards. but what does all of this have to do with the issue before you? i understand that this is a very mundane issue about a window been boarded up. i am just the tenants. -- tenant.

the previous landlord is a friend of mine. i knew all of the previous tenants. the blame lady has been up close to this board. this exists, ok. i have never been closer than three or four feet. all of the of their tenants and i have stayed away because we do not want our intestines on the sidewalk. i do not think the window should be boarded up. there's absolutely no reason on the planet to board it up. it would turn the room into a dungeon. that is a court violation. it would turn a bedroom into a windowless, dark, damp, cold, moldy room, and it will affect the other rooms. it will be a big mess. the landlady i do not think is here right now to confirm a lot of this stuff. but i think she has a new lawyer

here. and i have seen your statement to the board, even though i do not know if you have seen her statement to the board, and i do not know if i can comment on that. can i? ok, with all of the legalese, i think she is now in agreement with us. going ahead and boarding up the window. ok, i am hoping a lawyer will confirm that, and if she and i are on the same side, we just have to worry about the people next door. how valid is their claim? they cannot see in the window. all i see is the air over their backyard. what privacy issues are involved, as you mentioned a few minutes ago? but, yes, the window is on the property line. that is for sure.

there are 100,000 windows on the property line in san francisco. they are not retroactive to the 19th century or the 20th century. when i got my back door, like many others, i take a couple of steps, and i am touching the building next door. windows on the property line. my privacy, boo hoo, who cares? it has been 85 years that these houses have been next to each other. i mean, you know, if you think is a window out of the other 999,000 should be boarded up, ok. i assume we would have to move out. the bedroom would not be livable. we would have to have six months of renovation.

i am not the property owners involved. i am is witnessing what is going on. and that is all i have to say. thank you. commissioner fung: you indicated that legal representation for the landlord is here? ok, one of the things that we talked about last time was to explore and resolutions. have you had any meetings with the landlord regarding whether the window could be placed somewhere else? >> she told us in vaguely about what was going on about the people next door threatening to board up the window 1.5 years ago. since then, we have not talked to anybody. the property manager has given us the nation. the contractor has told us more than she has, and it is alarming, because there is a lot more going on. the forecast to be taken up.

-- before hat -- the floor has to be taken up. commissioner fung: but you have not talked to them? >> no. commissioner fung: thank you. can i go? >> this is a picture of the window. as you can see, it is approximately so far from the ground. this window was installed about 50 years ago. my client has flown to this property for about 20 years, so this window predates my client for about 30 years -- my client

has own this property for about 20 years. there have been no issues of privacy about this window. now, all of a sudden, it is the result of a dispute between mr. hasson and others. it has never been an issue before. also, there is a notice of violation that has been issued. a notice of violation has been done twice, and i spoke with somebody and ddi, and they said they would be working on that case if this violation is not abated -- i spoke with somebody at v.b.i. -- dbi. the permit is very clear. we'll try to comply with the nov -- we are trying to. that is it.

it is not about a dungeon. we wrote try to comply with the -- we were trying to comply with vdthe nov. he told me it was his understanding it would comply. i have another conversation with mr. corn fell -- kornfield. it was my understanding that this work would be for the nov, so we do not have the issue the and mr.hasson has by virtue of the appeal. what we have is a property owner who is trying to deal with nov.

it is a pretty straightforward issue. now, this other issue about the adjacent property owners and the privacy issue, this has been brought into the mix. as you can see, this window is 5 feet 9 inches off of the ground. it looks out into the backyard. their property is visible from that window, but it will take a lot of work on somebody's part in order to be. into their property from this particular window. to answer your question, commissioner fung, i did reach out to mr. hasson, and i thought if we just discussed it, he would understand what we wanted

to do. h mr.asso -- mr. hasson refused to talk to me on the telephone and only by email, and i do not think that is my preferred method of communication. the telephone hubs to conveyed the sentiment much better than doing something in the email -- the telephone helps. i am not certain he would believe what we are saying. having said that, issue is that we want to comply with the nov > -- nov. we have a tenant. we have something that's as this needs to be abated. -- that says this needs to be abated. mrs. giannini has brought in

another issue, which is the issue of privacy. let me show you a picture about what -- if you can see this. this is your property. we have got a window on the property line, and maybe you can look in your property. i do not think that means a boarding up his window.

this would make it a very dark not very pleasant place to live. frankly, we do not find this to be a viable issue of boarding up a window, the nov being updated by just installing this fire assembly. commissioner garcia: do you of a copy? >> yes, i do. commissioner garcia: you are portraying him as someone who does not know what is going on. but online 22, the paragraph labeled d says there is no requirement " to provide light.

>> i am not referring to mrs. giannini. commissioner garcia: let me finish, and this goes on the talks about her having a permit to do so. remove the window. >> i do not know where that has come from. commissioner garcia: have you read the briefs? >> the permit says it is to frame the window with a one-hour assembly. commissioner garcia: i understand that. you may be partially misled -- may be partially -- maybe partially misled mr. hasson.

>> it does not require removing the window. commissioner garcia: this seems pretty clear that the window is going to be taken out. >> yes, but that is mr. williams' brief. commissioner garcia: let me make this 0.1 more time. misleading information. >> his brief seems to be misleading, correct. >> -- commissioner garcia: i would have appreciated that. >> it seems very misleading.

commissioner fung: there were some questions raised. you have to put in a new one- hour window assembly, it is there another location that is not on the property line? i thought that was brought up in our discussion on jurisdiction, and we went beyond that. >> well, i was not present. i was not retained by the permit holder during that, so i apologize. i do not know what occurred during the jurisdiction. what i can say is that we're trying to essentially abate the nov in the simplest, easy way in order to appease dbi and mr. ha

sson. commissioner fung: with drama? >> i do not believe so. commissioner garcia -- with trim? >> i do not believe so. do you have a copy of the permit? commissioner garcia: made the the sizes on there, but i do not see it. >> all i see is that it is a one-hour assembly. my understanding is that it is going to be essentially taking the existing window and framing it in with a one-hour assembly.

yes. as i stated to commissioner fung, we try to take the simplest, most expeditious way to a pc -- to appease the nov. president peterson: do you have any comments on this, mr. o'r iordon? >> a notice of violation was issued. commissioner garcia: would be

about the same size? approximately? >> koran in a window, there is no more window. -- framing a window. there will be no more window. one hour assembly is generally understood. commissioner garcia: i guess the confusion is that mr. kornfeld suggest a solution to this problem. something that is rated at one hour can be put in their in terms of light and those issues.

there would still be a window there. maybe i misunderstood. >> i like the solution, but that is not what i am seeing documented here. commissioner fung: framed in, it did not say a one-hour window assembly. that is what i read intimate commissioner -- that is what i read.

commissioner garcia: is that legal for him not to have any light? >> that is not something that would be required. this'll be to provide light. if they were to provide light where the building is, they would not have any light. commissioner garcia: but would that room remain legal the for the purposes of a bedroom? there would be another building built there? or no window at all? >> in my package, i am seeing that there is a light well, which seems to be an exterior wall.