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 the two mitigated schemes -- >> 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