rear setback. commissioner peterson: i will go next, and i think primarily i agree with commissioner fung. i recognize this was a 4-3 bowed by the planning commissioners. that reflects that it was a difficult decision at that level. i must confess that when i hear about configuration and interior design issues, i think those reside with the property owner. i know we have talked a little bit about public opinion, but i think we see a growing shift in the city to respond to families as well as protect open space and alleviate shuttling and other concerns. this project certainly does that. with respect to the rationale of the decision, looking at what

was written by the decision, the setback was needed to respect the existing building scale. i find the setback now, given properties with no set back, or very little -- i found that again the setback was met by no horizontal extension. i am inclined to overturn the department decision as well. commissioner hwang: i want to say thank you to the people who came out here and testified on

behalf of the project sponsor. i think my view is that i agree there needs to be some adherents to these residential design guidelines. at the same time, it is hard. i also have to say, with respect to interior design issues, it is more difficult for me to consider them, way them, as heavily as i would the exterior. right now, i am not sure where i am going to fall. my inclination would be to overturn. president goh: i will jump in. i do not know where i am going to land either. i was taken by commissioner

fung's view of the need for the 15 foot setback in the front. i agree the rear may not need to set back. i was a little confused about why the square footage empty space in the middle needed to be there rather than a larger deck on the front of the property. i recognize that this configuration and layout, as my fellow commissioners have mentioned. however, i was also moved by the fact that 12 of the 32 homes already have third stories and do not have a setback. we did see on mapjack or whatever that was it that it is

true for several buildings on the block and across the street. i am torn. i do not know where i'm going to land. vice president garcia: i know for sure where i am going. i guess the people who support the planning department and planning commission were not able to get here. i think it has been marked by some other people it is extremely unusual to have even a few people come out in support of the project. usually, the people are here to express their concerns about some project and how it is going to affect them. this is refreshing. something came up in terms of whether the planning department is family friendly. i am sure they are not family unfriendly, but very often codes dictate against the needs of families and growing families.

in particular, someone talked about a neighbor having combined two units, and that would be considered a dwelling unit merger. those are extremely difficult to get. the reason people need it is because of their families. i think the design here matches the needs of this particular family. absolutely we need to keep families in san francisco. i do not have the statistic in hand, but it is amazing how few homes in san francisco have more than two bedrooms. many more have fewer. as to the issue having to do with discretionary review, i do not disagree with mr. saito.

the point to me is important. what does the army in? it is discretionary review of what, a code compliant project. this project is code compliant. the discretion exercised by the planning commission has to do with, in this case, in my opinion, giving greater weight to residential design guidelines then to the sentiment of people who are going to be affected by this and live in that neighborhood. i think it would be very -- i would not want to make the case that we should ignore the wants and desires and needs of this neighborhood in order to uphold rdg's there are exceptions to that. there are certainly 12 other buildings on this block, as have been stated, that have three

stories that are not set back. to pay too great an adherence to rdg's would be similar to letting the castle burned down in order to save the moat. i do not intend to uphold planning. i am going to make a motion and hope those commissioners who said they were undecided will go along with it. i will moved that we overturn the department, allow the project to go forward as proposed, and as for the reason, it is that i think it is not -- first of all, it addresses other needs in the code. those needs have to do with families and fostering buildings that provide for families and growing families. in addition, i think rdg's are

just that, guidelines. i do not think it is necessary to have strict adherence. >> i believe i heard other commissioners state aid finding that the existing set back is consistent with residential design guidelines. that is one funding. the second would be that if a rare setback is not necessary to comply with the residential design guidelines, given this project is not built into the rear yard -- those were findings i heard that would be part of the motion. vice president garcia: i appreciate that. president goh: before we call the roll, if you don't mind, i have a question for commissioner fung. i thought i heard you say you would overturn the department with regard to the rare setback but you supported the front said beck.

did i miss here you? commissioner fung: may be i was unclear. i felt the front setback was sufficient to define the upper story a, having less impact on adjacent yards. president goh: you would not vote to overturn the department with regard to the front step back? >> if i may offer a clarification, we suggest in the front setback proposed by the project sponsor is sufficient? commissioner fung: is sufficient. maybe i was not clear. president goh: i'm sorry. i understand. >> we can go ahead and call the roll. when you are ready.

>> we have a motion from the vice president to grant this appeal, overruled the denial, issue this permit with this 5 foot 10 inch front set back, as proposed by the appellant, no rare setback, and with several findings that the 5 ft. 10 in front setback is consistent with the residential design guidelines. what was the second point? >> the rare setback is not required, given the proposal does not encroach into the rear yard. it provides family friendly housing. >> on that motion to overrule an issue this permit with those conditions and findings -- president goh: before you call the roll, again -- vice-

president garcia, it is your motion. are you wedded to those reasons, those findings? vice president garcia: what do you object to? president goh: the statement that the front setback is consistent with the rdg's. i guess i am looking at our counsel. vice president garcia: what if it were to be worded that it is adequate. commissioner fung: we could state it is consistent with the can -- with the intent of the rdg. president goh: i would sign and if we use commissioner hwang's language that it is not inconsistent. >> that is fine. president goh: it is a friendly amendment. is that acceptable? vice president garcia: certainly

to me. we are results oriented. president goh: i am concerned about precedent. >> again, on this motion from the vice president to overrule the denial and issue the permit with those conditions, and with that amended finding -- commissioner fung:aye. president goh: aye. commissioner peterson: aye. commissioner hwang: aye. >> the boat is -- vote is 5-0. a permit shall issue with those conditions and findings. [applause] >> thank you. president goh: let's take a minute to clear the room. >> if you could please clear the room quickly and quietly, we would appreciate it.

we have one more case to hear. >> will call item nine. 3030 noriega street is the property. we are protesting the issuance to abel huang -- mabel huang a permit to modify a building, including constructing a new deck.

appreciate your patience waiting here this evening. we will start with the appellant. >> good evening, president and the commission. my name is kenneth leung. i lived in this property 20 years. recently, the owner next door, the house -- the new owner is also chinese. we appreciate them. we just received a letter from the department on june 30 regarding the remodel of their house. mostly, we are concerned about adding a deck on the back of the house. in the whole block, nobody has a

back in this neighborhood. because of the property, i am not sure -- i can assure you the picture. the deck at the back would be 7 feet by 19 feet. my bedroom is at the back of the house. if they build that on the back, it is very close to our bedroom window. we are not comfortable with the privacy. also, because of the safety issue -- you can see the fence between our properties is only about 6 feet high.

someone on the deck could easily jump across to our property. the shade is also a concern. the property on the deck is on the west side of the property. in general, the sun does not come out until the late afternoon. if it comes out like that, the shade is against our backyard. the reason is one it purchased the property, on our east side is a church. it is already blocking our property. if someone is on the left side of the property building a deck, it would totally obstruct our

backyard. we would be totally isolated in the shade. that is the reason. my wife had an extra comment. >> good evening. we have been living in this house for a long time. we enjoyed the quiet and peaceful. just one thing about our privacy. it would be in our back room window. we can open the window and make noises to our window. i do not think anybody wants their bedroom looking by somebody else, look through your window. usually, we will open the ã9qj? arçj÷ and the shades so wn

use the sunshine. i think it is with the good for the environment to save energy. if they built the addition in front of our window we would need to close the window all day so people cannot see from the deck. i really want you to protect our privacy. thank you. >> thank you. we can hear from the permit holders now. >> my name is mabel huang. i am the new owner of 33 noriega street. i have my mother, mother-in-law,

husband, and three children. it is our plan to live there for a long time. we would like to have a comfortable home to live in. my mother's legs are weak. she cannot go out anymore. she is only staying home. she would love to go out to get fresh air and set up side. -- sit outside. >> my name is ken chung. i am her brother in law. i have several pictures. how does that work? this is a picture of 3030, and

this is a picture of their house. notice there is about 2 feet different. here is another picture. where did it go? here is another picture of the side of our house and their house. different times of the day. i took the picture at 9:00, this one, 12:00, 3:00, 6:00. the back of the house faces north. it never gets the sun hitting

the house. i do not know if it is going to block their light, but that is the picture. here is another picture i took at 9:00, it 12:00, 3:00, and 6:00. all these times, the back of the houses get light. mainly, that is it. commissioner fung: the you have a copy of the plan of your deck so we can see how it is situated in the rear yard, and how big it is? >> we did not bring any plans, but it is supposed to be 7 feet out. vice president garcia: it goes out 7? >> it goes out seven.

it is a 25 foot lot. so it is set back. vice president garcia: is 3 feet in on the appellant side and goes up 7 feet? >> that is it. commissioner hwang: i have a question. have you had any conversations or attempted conversations with your neighbors? do you live in the same house? so miss hwang. >> he is my brother-in-law. my husband talked to me -- talked to him. he said you had best not build a deck.

my husband told him we would not bother him or take any privacy. commissioner hwang: the understand the concerns of your neighbors and do you have any thoughts about how to address them and all blacks -- at all? >> the picture right here -- this is my house, and this is the neighbor's house. we are going to build that right here.

from here to her window is about 6 feet. also, my house is lower than their house by 2 feet. if i stand on this line, my head is only up here. i cannot see from my window to their window. up here, i cannot see anything through the window. commissioner hwang: but you will be able to see into their yard. you will from the deck be able to see into their yard, right? >> yes. commissioner hwang: when i asked if you had any conversations about privacy, light, or

shadows, did you consider any way to address that, or did you just say it is not one to be a problem? >> i think we feel that a deck here -- we do not feel it affects the privacy or blocks this light. all of the back of the yards -- it faces the north. commissioner hwang: you do not think there is an issue? >> what happened was one day her husband talked to the neighbor and said i think if you have any concerns with the deck we could do a few things.

one i remember he said was we could put a panel, either a lattice, and that would make it better. he said he would rather we not build any deck. we said what would happen if we put a translucent panels? we would not see each other, but we would still get the light. he said the same thing -- better we do not build a deck. this deck is only 7 feet extending out, 3 feet cut off on each side. there is not much affect anyway. the square footage is what, seven times, what is left -- commissioner fung: 19. >> that is how big the square footage is.

there is a church on the corner that is fully extended because it is commercial. i guess he asked them and said does that bother you, and he said it was there a long time ago. but we have a picture. this is the furthest part of the church, which is the furthest part of the back yard. it has a stair and fully extended window. i do not think that bothered the neighbor. i do not think it would have any impact. the other guy, the church, is fully extended. their family is mainly family oriented. we're not going to have parties

or anything like that. i do not know why we cannot build a little back. -- little dekc. >> -- little deck. >> mr. sider? >> this appeal concerns a permit that was an over-the-counter approval by the planning department and the building department as well. it is not subject, a deck of this type, nor the interior improvements -- they are not subject to neighborhood notice. the view issues, property value concerns, and loss of privacy -- only the loss of privacy is contemplated by department

policies, and then only in an adjunct capacity. the proposal is not extraordinary or unusual. the loss of privacy is something typical in a dense urban environment like san francisco. the discussions just now by the project sponsor with respect to privacy screens i think are intriguing. beyond that, i would reiterate there is nothing about this proposal that strikes us as extraordinary or unusual. the permit is right. in absence of compromise by the parties involved in measures that could be taken for mutual benefit, such as a privacy screen, we would urge you to uphold the approval of this permit application. commissioner fung: have you seen the permit application? >> i do not have, and i dot