we dropped in last year and it happened that the music inside was so loud it bothered us so much we were unable to go back. you know, people can do business on their laptops and stuff. the other thing consider in general we have such a concentration of alcohol in this area it raises the rent for other businesses that can't move in. by you worry about you would put on a condition like no alcohol used at those tables and chairs

and no alcohol being a condition. you know, the coffee window that is open you need to put the conditions in this and one of them would be no tables and chairs i think that would be helpful. i would like to mention my friend lives up that way >> thank you. any further public comment? >> seeing none public comment close. >> yeah. i live nearby. i pass by but am not a patron. be that as it may it always looked like a nice establishment. i want to make two observations.

i think having chairs and tables on the sidewalk is nonfiction of some code. we don't regulate that in terms of the actually placement but having driven but they are out there so i should go and legallize that if the commission decided it's okay. the same idea has come up with the academy of art they have been sited and since i drive by there at least three or four times a week i'm going to notice if it's been taken care of. i notice that a lot of

businesses have signs that is a no smoking at a certain amount of feet. so if you have tables and chairs outside you may have to enforce the smoking regulation. that's all i have and >> i'm down there a lot. a lot of nights i'll park on the street and walk as far away and i go by all those places. i'm not on pine so i usually try to limit it to bush you know, i see all those places. there's a new pub on taylor and they all seem to be fairly well,

i usually don't go in. i don't see a problem - and they all have at least beer and wine sales and some have hard liquor too so - and it's a very deputies area it reminds me of manhattan where you have a lot of apartment buildings. if you live in one thing of those buildings you don't want to go more than a block or two at night. it makes sense to me if they have a 10 o'clock closure it is okay. i don't see them carrying on at 9 or 10 o'clock it's initially

under control so i'm supportive of this 0 project >> i believe that adding the additional permission for them to serve beer and wine is very much in keeping with the corner cafe shop. it's in an area that is inanimated i feel there is indeed a permit for the chair and table outside which is a thing that gets a year renewal >> currently they don't have a valid table and chair license. i did ask them to go through the process >> i live nearby and nobody was

sitting in the chairs when i went by. it's properly asking the owner to perform to what could slip somebody's memory. i would say i move to approve >> second. >> yeah, the question we've talked about the closing time should that be in the conditions. >> they don't have an option under the zoning and commissioners there's a second to approve with the motion. (calling roll). so commissioners that passed 6 to zero this will place you under the

final item. 6b 19 at 341 bank street. >> commissioners i will be presenting this case. i'm with the staff. the item is for discretionary review. to legalize a deck open. the dr requester has concerns that a 11 notification was - noise and privacy concerns. second 3 notice only applies to the dimensions of a structure and in this case the 311 notice is not required.

the project was reviewed and found the desk to be within the legal qualifications. under dr reform legislation it does fit the requirement. i have two e-mails that i'm circulating for your review. this clicks the report >> you have 5 minutes. >> hi it would be great if they could be handed out. >> as soon as he starts speaking. >> i'm the property owner of 345 bank street.

i want to express my concerns beyond the typical of issuing a permit and i know the city has recommended that the - it be issued. the impact, that i discussed not only applied - soar can i put the presentation up? hold on for a second. thank you if it's on the computer it will come on the screen. i hope - the impacts not only apply to me but to the other places.

this is a note and some people said they would be here but because of the time change they were not able to. you'll hear that i'm trying to find a resolution. in this case other neighbors this chimed in and have had similar impressions and these are not just my fears. here's the deck in question. in terms of being agreeable to assess this - because my roof is only 20 inches above the roofline and whether it's for

recreational or malice use it's enticing to be on the roof. an architect has advised me there's a fire risk and that really the owners took care of but their investigators and they'll never be living there they're not concerned with it. the right to privy realize that noise is part of this area but the noise from the roof has already become disruptive. and this was not the case prior to the repeal vacation. i'm also concerned that more

noise from my bedroom will carry next door because it's right next to my bedroom. i've lived there 15 years and i've never had a problem with security and suddenly i come home from a trip and there's fingerprints on my wall. it's unsound for us to have to ask us - me and my neighborhood to be imposed with other things >> so all of us want property values to increase and i'm aware

of that. their agenda is no o to any other time misses this investment they should not be able to essential make design decisions that negatively effect other property owners and leave. in this case property values are going to be effected i have a letter from a valid licensed real estate agent. so it's important to understand the issue today. i don't understand the tennis of the property owners they got angry with me i cost them an architect and the rebuilding

code >> your time has expired. >> okay. >> the first speakers in favor of the dr requester. >> thank you commissioners i'm david lift i'm an interested bystander i spend a considerable amount of time at the house and i've been watching this thing unfold and i don't understand why we're here. there's been a process here that's broken down quite a bit as the parties have attempt to communicate but have failed. because this seemed to be highly

problematic when you see what this is happening here you see a bunch of dominos that are falling. i've spent considerable time at the house the deck sits below and there's an audio effect including the workers on repeated occasion it comes right in as if they're in the room. there's a privacy issues issue going the other way. the skirt is important here. i have seen this structure this construction going back and forth between the house's is

effectiveless. should this house be sold to people with kids and children the temptation to use the deck and doing to who knows what is uncertain so in terms of security i believe this needs further consideration i i would ask i deny this >> project sponsor you have 5 minutes. good morning. >> i'm the owner this is my first time at the dr my husband and you are owners. i work in large coordinations my

husband is a software engineer. here's some pictures. this is an image the property is sought with illegal contradiction you can see two doors here. when people at the property use this is a investments this is what the property looks like right now. so we've pit in all the money met the building and planning codes. in alleged m 3 i would also like to address the deal application actually sites the building code

and our response is that the new code is applicable. at the time of the balcony and the deck we went to the building department and talked about where we would need to go through the notification. we took pictures of the balcony and of the bedrooms and bathrooms we did all that in a month and a half. we had to do different drawings. i'd like to address some issues. specifically with respect to privacy. the deck if i can show you an image of the deck excuse me.

it's very well contained within the property it didn't infringe on any bodies view it don't block anybody's fresh air. it's our personal space and we want to have a good view. i could be touted as an investigator but i want to do the very best for the property and that backs our presentation. i'm going to also address assess issues that have been raised - if you see the image that we have of here this is the dr applicants of the roof and he

you see the neighboring houses. those houses have been in those conditions. it's is the access and security really a certain. i can tell you that i wouldn't have a certain. i wonder if somebody is really going to come from any roof and jump on my deck i think we need to consider what needs to happen for everyone else out there. so i'm sorry. now in addressing noise issues i must suggest there have been no form tests.

we have significantly improved the construction and we have done the balcony and meet the guidelines for construction. having no to assume there's going to be a fourteen-year-old teenager living there and that's also anticipating that someone may want to assume there's an elderly person mostly in and dying is an assumption >> thank you. speakers in favor of the project sponsor? >> i'm her husband.

i just wanted to somehow underscore points. but i want to increase score no essential ideas has been raised. pretty much everybody in the city has concerns by that shouldn't make it is important that all people in the consistent have to redo designs for their properties. there are correct solutions rather than forcing us to remove the obstructions and put a second door.

we have improved the offer ail fire protection of the house has improved. as far as noise there's no testing for the noise. it could be effected by the level of the noise the direction of the noise and none of that has been performed and to say it's a problem is becauseless. again, we had the construction and the over all noise has been improved. i want to iceberg that we have talked to our neighbors and at least 4 neighbors have come back to us and say they're happy with the overall improvement to the neighborhood. so again, this is a great next

thing thorou- thing >> any other comments? . >> so - a couple of points there are concerns. whether there are perceived or real they're going to effect our property prices. the solution that we originally entertained was not sufficient.

as i've explained noises have really gown up. the neighbors are happy that the renovation is going on as well because it helps the market value of the home. we do try to come to some agreement the first agreement was the only offer. and so the discussion has stopped. i'd like to say that the permit has not been issued there was some unfortunate mishap from the city that was made in error. this is a design review.

in terms of whether or not they were required to discuss this in advance of doing this they were required to use my roof so whether or not there was a requirement they needed to get permission and because they didn't our roof was damaged. they called me scarey. i hope you'll consider essential the damage and it's part of what's gone on and had they discussed this with me we'd not be here today >> project sponsor you have 2 minutes. >> i'm going to address planning matters down to the

roof. it's the planning commission we the get a revised planning issue for the roof subsequently and whether it was legal or not we did do our primarily work of what the risks and requirements for us to meet the code. we did get the application and whether the permit was suspended or not and the construction and the requirement for the planning code has been met it is met for now >> the public part is closed. >> so it's funny i often tell

people that many of those cases are about decks. considering that san francisco is not a tropical climate. clearly in this area there's been a conversation breakdown and it's our job so figure this out. if damage has been done to our roof it's a civil matter. obviously by my reference to roof-decks it's not an one time case. of course, we don't - protecting

property values or those kinds of issues we can't protect people's property vails in terms of the style of the houses being built close together you can walk on the roofs of several properties so that's not extraordinary as well. i hope the two sides can work together i would hope you'd get along with the new owners. from our standpoint of what we have to review i don't see any extraordinary circumstances. obviously, the issues around building the deck. at this point there's nothing that would make us deny the