>> 5 pages so 5 pages of briefing with exhibits and some responded opportunity from the appellant? >> yes. >> so then i'll suggest you have the permit holders submit their brief at least two weeks in advance. >> who's the motion maker. >> commissioner honda. >> commissioner honda okay. and this is a continuance to july 16th correct? a public hearing has been held and it continuance 80 is to allow time the permit holder rec and park to work with the appellant on the acknowledgement of the prior historic structure

pursue additional briefing is loud and 5 pages per party one thursday prior. on p that motion to continue. commissioner fung. tauft. commissioner lazarus. this matter is continued until you july 16th. thank you >> okay. thank you. item 6 has already been heard item 7 alice vs. the department of public works and this is on post street protesting the issuance of the kevin of an alteration permit we'll start

with the appellants agent >> can you disclose our prior. >> so we're both realtors i've had a transaction in the past i can hear this case. >> good evening, everyone i'm michael robin's i'm an architect and registered in california. i've been retained by alice lamb to look at the construction adjacent to her property. i've offered the native or the brief that was insinuated and i'd like to go over the documents from that. so this is really regarding the property owners on post a surveillance of permits a has been approved for the expansion

of non-conforming desks in the rear yard it's a 3 family and 3 story building. the proposed decks decks are larger and extend into the rear yard. i'd like to get the overhead projector. >> could you speak more into the microphone, please. >> okay. as you can see the existing deck is offset from the property line two feet two inches the new deck will be built up against the property line the concern is with the expanded deck built adjacent to

their property dollars additional risk fire risks and the decks are used frequently for grilling purposes. and as well other entertainment. is other concerns they've raised throughout the process have been about the possibility of people getting access from the third floor deck to the roof now that it's a step up on the roof. the other concerns that were raised had to do with the potential for water getting between the building and maintaining theed that covered up by the firewall that's proposed. dollars a firewall proposed to separate the new deck with the exist building, however, the affair wall terms or stops 42

inches above the third floor deck didn't provide a lot of safeties ordinary person the third floor. the department of building inspection has said this position myself as an architect as well as a representing the lamb family >> variance to expand the deck that additional measure should be taken to protect the adjacent property owners. the issues were raised but the variance was granted ambassador dollars documents from the attorney of the lamb family that listed the issues they felt not addressed by the proposed project the lamb family has reached out to the neighbors through the

process and no adjusts have been made to the lamb family. and that's probably why we're here today. the there's a number of provisions that were listed in the variance. under the will vblgd 4 there was a list of things the size of the decks were to remain similar to the original ones and the highest third floor deck was to be smaller in area then the lower deck the final plans don't show this the restrictions of the future limited rear yard and the variance decision required the restrictions be posted on

the permit drawings and as far as we can tell have not been poflt. we were not given the opportunity to have the drawings by the sponsors architect. and in trying to see them at the deniable we remember told they were at a veshdz reproduction service and not available to us. in terms of the lamb family is requesting as i mentioned given the size of the increased deck and the limited yard really the intent is to enforce the code to its fullest stent it's currently shown that in the document is

missing a lot of important information about the construction of the firewall in particular, the structural drawings are not shown, the assembly that's required to meet the fire reading for the firewall is not detailed, the code it appears the code will require sprinklers, however, on existing building without sprinklers will be waived. given the expectations of the deck as a licensed architect it's not prudent to wave the condition. so what the lamb family is requesting and they're not against the neighbor having the ability to use their property but they want their property protected their president the

firewall increased above the current level and they're requesting that a sprinkler system be installed and the firewall be expended 14 inches. i see my time is expired thank you very much >> one of the e-mails from the appellant indicated that she would drop the appeal if a 2 foot 2 inch gap for the new deck is maintained. >> that's correct her primary concern is the deck abutting against her property. >> how does it prevent someone from jumping on her roof. >> if the sprinklers were there

not rigging a two foot wall and in terms of the gaining access to the top of her roof the 2 feet would disyou encourage potential burglars. >> okay. thank you. we can hear from the permit holder now. >> good evening president and board members i'm the earth for the project i'm andy.

i can maybe start with summarizing the process. we've been 2 1/2 years now from the date of submittal from the submittal process and the appeals process. i want to summarize the number of appeals that's been made and the number of postponements and we've made efforts to address the appellants concerns to the course of those appeals will or would be denied it's shifting the appeals it's been a challenge to answer. as far as a summary of what this is it's essentially a blank wall it's abutting a blank wall and the palate will have no awareness whatsoever regarding this project so of the -

>> could you go to the overhead. >> this is the plank wall it's 20 feet long and thirty feet tall and the current staircase that's there. this is the condition so there's no windows facing this no way she'll be effected in any way i'll say that's been the response of a number of both the planning commission and the zoning administer and the board of appeals this is has no impact whatsoever on her project. the other thing i'd like to respond to say what we're proposing is to improve a

current condition make it more code compliant and put a firewall between her property and the proposed deck we're improving the condition making that more code compliant. her response is if we leave it the way it is with no firewall separation she'll not appeal it i don't understand the logic behind that and we're required to respond to that time and time again. what we're proposing is so far as any fire concerns we're putting a firewall and that makes that more fire effective as far as you know, allowing a fire to jump between the two

properties. the other thing i want to address is the aspect of the size of the project. time and again, the only reference is to the deck this is a deck and stair if you looked at any i believe my exhibit no. 5. let's see - exhibit 4. sorry. so this is a comparison of the size of the structure of the stair and the deck. we're not only replacing a stair but a stair and deck. so the size of the stair and deck in comparison with the existing is either almost

identical or smaller. so as far as increasing the impact or having any increasing the fire danger is because of the size of what we're proposing that's not an issue regarding this so. just wanted to anyone who wishes to speak that clear that's a clear comparison of the two structures with the size of what's being proposed so and also in regard to the condition of putting a wall abutting her property currently that condition exists over 80 percent of two sides of the property so

- i mean this is the standard condition in the city dollars zero property lines and walls abutting walls this exists already >> you're referring to what i'm sorry. >> you need the overhead. i think you turned the thing off >> sorry so, anyway this is showing that the property and - my hold on a second let's refer to the overhead. >> this the the appellants property i'm showing you as a graphic of the condition. she already has this condition along 80 percent of two sides of her walls that's excited for 50 years or so.

we're proposing to, you know, 12 and a half feet length that's co- compliant with the two sides that will provide the fire protection. so - and in regards to some of the code issues that were brought up about projections and things dollars been misinterpretation and misrepresentation of the code by putting the one hour firewall abutting the property the deck is protected from the adjacent property. so and the beer in complete compliance with the egress those are required egress and making them more code compliant and

this is the essence we're providing needed open space and direct caesar's access this is part of the planning code >> in your belief you've indicated you pushed this deck against the appellants wall because you have some sort of accomodation have you lines or something to the neighbor to the east? well, there are a couple of reasons the current condition of the deck or it's two feet away from the adjacent property it's not correct that the sprinkler doesn't need a firewall it needs a firewall in this type of this needs a firewall >> - and that's not my question the neighbor to the east you

indicated you pushed the decks against the appellants property because of some accomodation to the neighbor to the east but i didn't see any details. >> there was we are pushing it up against someone that's not effected by the condition of the property and we're tearing it down towards the are persons property that has open space marry in the corner dollars open space on our property that has less of an impact on the adjacent properties that are effected but faces the deck that's pushed up against the wall. >> i'm not sure i see the logic but maybe i'm not understanding

the question. >> if i looked at it purple from the site plan point of view is that deck and your existing configuration triangle shaped with the stair on the triangle last year side and the entire thing was shifted two feet to the east there's no impact to the neighbor to the east you wouldn't have an appeal on the project. >> well, i would - dollars two concerns we would be required to put a firewall. >> do you have a firewall now. >> it's abutting against the wall there's no two feet space you wouldn't be able to access that space it would be an eye

soar and an undue difficulty for the property owners to maintain that space with the blank walls being thirty feet tall that i don't see the reason for that. >> there's a reason. >> do you understand? >> i don't quite accept it but understand it. >> thank you. okay. thank you. mr. t >> yeah. sure. good evening just briefly as mentioned this project originally received a variance

for demolition and replacement of a new stair and deck structure and the required rear yard in december of 2012 that variance was appealed to this board and in march of 2013 where the board upheld the variance and then the project was also dred and they heard the dr and choose not to take the dr in discretionary review there was a slight challenge to the building permit and not the deck but the stair was reduced in footprint by converting to a double staircase system and that reduced the footprint of the structure so from a prospective from the planning department that was fine it was not increasing the size of the

project that was previously approved and based on that the building permit was approved properly if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them >> thank you, mr. duffey. >> commissioners the building permit appears to meet the building code requirement for the rebuilding of the deck. what's interesting if you demolish a deck and put it the same size and location you'll not need to build a firewall but we changed the condition of the deck so we require then it has to be 42 inches higher than the walking surface and i met yesterday with the appellant and

the architect it was 20 inches short thought you height of the roof they were concerned a little bit about that. but it does meet the code in regards to the anytime requirement are. so strirnldz would not be required there's no way to require strirnldz you wouldn't get deck approvals but i'm available for any questions. >> thank you, mr. duffey i know a specific case there was no variance for the deck and no firewall. it's at the rear property line >> rebuilding in kind. >> supposedly. >> yeah. if you're rebuilding in today, we don't require a fi

firewall. >> you require a variance. >> we differ sometimes but certainly, you know. >> thank you is there any public comment on this item? >> maybe the permittee holder. >> i don't know. >> i'm kevin while i'm the owner on post. >> your time to speak was part of the time allocated towards the parties so if dollars rebuttal come up u accompanying you may speak then. >> is there any public comment. >> seeing none, mr. robin's goes first.

3 minutes >> i just want to clarify a couple of items and then alice maybe can have a few comments pr the areas of the decks as an architect i typically consider the deck independent of the stair because the number of occupants is based on the area of the deck and not on the area of the stairway so it's much more important to compare deck to deck in terms of the area of the stairway. in terms of terraceing the deck the decks are not terraced they're of equal size their shifted by that's different

that's listed in the variance not on the permit drawings in terms of what the permit drawings show dollars clearly a lack of daily in terms of the details it's required to have 18 inches of non-combustible material that's typically sheet metal it's not in the permit so far as i can tell. >> use the other microphone first. >> i'm alice there's a few things i want to address number one i want to be good neighbors that's why before the brief starting last year april 9th i wrote an individual letter to each person to try to solve the

problem and no one wants to hear. at that time the result there would be no dr and we don't need to spend time today. after i met michael and engaged him to help me and wrote a letter last year october 14th proposing something we're supposed to solve the pro problem. my concern is number one 5 safety issue and health issue as i saw the picture they have a big barbecue put the maintenance and security and i hope i can work out something with them to increase the firewall to have peace of mind on safety issues and maintenance issue and health issue it's brought up to my attention that the barbecue or

whatever it can be harmful to getting couple of or whatever. thank you, thank you thank you very much. >> okay. we he can hear from the permit holder now. >> . as soon as they clear out. >> sorry can you clarify would both of us get 3 minutes each. >> combined. >> i'll speak briefly the terrace is a elaborate plan this is in the original plan and it was throughout the course of the appeals and the approvals. thank you. >> sorry. kevin while the owner on post.

i have to express a lot of frustration with the process. i appreciate the different times that somebody gets to come to and have a problem with the design or whatever but as the owner i'm in the middle here. and having to deal with the fact that every time it's something new that's gets addressed some new complaint and today first time we were revisiting something that was clarified in previous hearings where the commission, users and the planning department all resolute in favor of the design including the fact it's close to the wall and every time the appellant raises something it's bigger or causes problems with the secured or other people,