live on 27th street i'm here to read a letter to whom it may concern i have a letter we're the owners at 45027th street neighborhoods to rob and vivian our neighbors have been scared throughout the process to try to permit their home they instructed us about the plans once and draw it on paper left the door open to request moifgz we may have they've listened to the conversation prudent person to our question and other neighbors have done the same vivian and robert discussed

their plans their architects and well-versed if a project as well as to do to maintain good neighborly conditions i'm understanding most neighbors are of support and if we can be of more sports lowest us know signed. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> oh, i didn't fill one out i'm jooent speaking no support of the project sponsor i live across the street from the proposed project i live on 27th street a long term resident and also in my house for 31 years

vivian and rob have lived across the street and been impressed with they're new plans first, they meeting met with me and individuals they made modifications to the plan based on the concerns raised by the neighbors i was at the group meeting in their home and neighbors from east and west joining property were in attendance interest caesar chavez street and my neighbors 58 i can't think and rob reviewed the plans and made modifications to the plans i've talked to many of my neighbors and the people agreed this was a positive experience and vivian and rob were responsive i know how auditorium e awful the

practices the process can be one developer was interested if building the biggest home and vivian and rob licenses to people and reached compromises i hope you support the plans thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please >> including but not limited to a wendy speak on a architect i live on that block and live in the neighborhood since 1975 i don't know the architect owner personally they've would down the hill i've not been involved in my of the meetings it is not a person war between neighbors like jan my neighbor before she sold them the house that's to the for i don't think this is an

issue for lawyers and neighbors when light cross a property line we call it trespassing when daylight is not allowed to cross a property line it's called blocking an assess taking an existing continue on purpose when other solutions available we might even call it stealing night light trespassing can be changed we courage that however, a building wall 3 stories high a permanent good daylight is desirable the purpose planning and architecture it is so basically mentioned if the san francisco guidelines but they're an intent i'm going to speak to the i'd

like to take this opportunity of daylight and what it means good guidelines of planning air and light and planning issues go beyond this project their basic and around the world the current permit did not meet the good guidelines i believe unnecessarily block units to the west this could have been corrected by the planning authority it wasn't it could have been cared considered and designed around but luckily a neighbor has brought to the attendance of the board of appeals to try to have access to daylight without results as an architect and resident of san francisco i must remind everyone

here that planning and the planning and architecture community must do they're very best we count on you, we count on our community architects are licensed to protect the safety and health and welfare of the public the general public and blocking existing light is not good for anyone we must do better and actually, the existing light well on 462 they call a light yard framing it in a special way could be a design asset for both properties the existing design is long and narrow and no light enters the existing permitted design a clever architect would use that light to bring a light

well, to start on the second floor level where the garage is allow a skylight to - >> your time is up. >> i'll say i hope that board this will set a horrible precedence because some neighbors like it and some don't it's your duty to respect the old and new tenants this design didn't respect the existing tenants. >> is there any additional public comment okay. seeing none we'll start our rebuttal ms. murdock first. >> thank you very much in rebuttal i'm saying that the planning commission and the project sponsors have said i've brought no new information, however, if the project sponsors had a licenses and given me an

opportunity to meet with us individually like he did with all the other neighbors he would have seen we came up with modifications that are minor and additionally, we gone ahead and did a daylight studies in our brief i brought full prints in case that helps i'm happy to submit those into evidence unlike their shadow studies we're losing light i don't believe the shadow studies are accurate, and, secondly, i want to board to look at the buildings to the west when you look at that and actually, i have something to show open the projector when you look at yes

those are their own designs as you can see their 3 story building height right here is turn around the back half the knowledge this is my apartment completely no exposure to the north and west and now to the east we're completely in a death like situation year around and additionally they discussed how they've made rare e.r. rear and front set back instead of make concessions they've not met with us like so many other neighbors that's all we're asking for additional time for us to be heard and one other important point i just moved back under new york last year

i've been a long time resident of the napa valley and been there 16 years i also found any dream home when i moved into the building i basically have a place i want to live for decades but if it becomes a closet how will that be my dream home i ask for more time to meet with the neighbors on 4, 62. >> commissioners do you want the submittal or shall we ask them to take it back. >> you can take back our shadow study thank you. >> we'll hear rebuttal from the permit holder. >> thank you, commissioners very briefing i'll respond to this points raised first fairs by the building owner the point

that direct sunlight will be interfered with direct sexually assaulted is not protected most people receive the addict sunlight the courtyard is appropriate for the sunlight in my project mr. wise man supported the project and ms. jensen supported the project and others we're happy the lady could appear sorry she didn't attend my of the many 8 meetings with the neighbors she had an opportunity to express her opportunity she didn't attend the c r hearing, in fact, that guess the first

time we're heard from her we're 9 months down the road into the permit once again in her testimony ms. burr trained inter challenging ably used the word access to light is indirect light direct sunlight is what you get when our window faces the sun not many people have that benefit so in conclusion, this project does provide adequate access to light in the light court. >> determined by the planning staff and affirmed by the planning commission. >> i have a question. >> question yes.

>> has b there been conversation with ms. murdock. >> she was herald acquit extensively. >> i think she referenced the other neighbors i'm trying to figure out. >> well, there was meeting held open for everyone i don't think she attended them. >> i first met the appellant prior to the 311 we met on a preapplication meeting she knew ever our project we challenged conversations we said you'll be receiving a 311 notice i gave her my card didn't hear anything the 311 notice went out she sent

an e-mail we agreed to work with staff to investigate her concerns we do and planning staff invited the site in person her concerns were addressed her concerns were heard at the planning commission commissioner moore and commissioner fung praised our project. >> many wilson's question if you had direct e-mail corresponds. >> yes. >> any thing mr. t. >> good evening, commissioners corey t planning staff i want to touch on a point i think that the permit holders representative mentioned which is the residence guidelines says there is an existing light well,

if you butt up against it match that but for larger light wells it is a 6 by 9 light well even though not matched one hundred percentage but matched 3 by 6 a typical light well, that's the situation we see most often in those situations they railway is the case that light well will preserve all of the sunlight to the neighboring building but preserve some of the light it is indirect not the intent to have the balance when considering just the different aspects the way that properties face and the street runs in this situation the light well, was not considered a light well more of a light court more than three or four times larger than the light

well and the main obstacle to area the 3 story portion at the front of the lot due south and how much light regardless the neighboring properties i want to talk about that we do p have guidelines for smaller light wells but in a situation like this we'll not require them to do a matching light well, that's a huge chunk and f even though they do a smaller light well, it will have impact on the adjacent property if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them. >> okay. we've heard from the parties and the rebuttal the matter is submitted.

>> you know let's discuss a few of the pertinent issues brought forth one is and i'm in agreement with the comment that was made a number which times we need to be able to delineate between direct sunlight versus light in general neither sun shadow study was totally accurate. >> the issue of how much

blockage occurs probably could be gentle listed we're primarily talking about mid morning sun from the east plain question here is how does this building which is got zero property line needs to be did understand meritly by it's too neighbors i'm in agreement with the planning department staff that this is not a courtyard the question what impact by the suggestions of the appellant have by an that she talks about reversing the roof that reduce the a.d. you didn't know of the

building she's in that does very live of this it's 3 stories high the early morning sun is on the horizon not doing anything the other issue whether you put a matching light well by definition the matching light wells might be there's one code issue to lights wells but in general the matching light wells are narrow yes there would be a little bit more ambient light into the courtyard not direct light into the courtyard so the question then becomes how much do you cut to look at light the only way to get more light is

one or two stories that's itself existing - in terms of where i'm going with this besides the discussion on light i think that the ability to create more light for the appellant is not going to happen with any building in excess of two stories on that basis i'm deferring to up hold the permit the building permit holder has rights too. >> i concur. >> i also concur as well our assistant da mentioned the orientation of this only existing 3 story fingertip

blocks out most the sunlight and my fellow commissioner indicated the only way it effectively effects the sunlight to get to the unit to reduce the math to one or two stories i don't see that happening. >> i have a question mr. t the subject has accompany from a point of clarification shadow study shouldn't there obey perimeters such that the shadow study is a shadow study. >> that's atsz an interesting point the shadow studies are required for building more than 40 feet high and more to do with shadows 0 on open space in rec and park if you're shadowing a park you're required to do a

detailed shadow analysis that does have to meet specific perimeters in this situation there's no planning code requirement or specific requirement or guidelines that says x amount of sunlight whether direct or ambivalent no perimeters given no shadow studies because of the purpose of a matching light well, not to create perfect direct sunlight but to create and preserve ambient light oftentimes we require the matching light wells not making it to the light well itself to the purposes is different not as perspire active as a shadow controllers are on rec and park properties. >> but aren't there now or

standard ways to simulate what's going to happen putting aside you're not requiring if someone is submitting a simulation it is scientifically accurate. >> 0 actually any consulate can put together a shadow study using a methodology it will have to be checked again those are done for the ones that require when we have this for those this is general information we're not looking for the same type of provision obviously we've had renderings before that shows shadows at the wrong time of day when it is clearly not in the ball park we'll address that if we're talking about a half of degree and the 10:00 a.m. that level of provision co-we don't

have the requirement to be that precise in this situation. >> thank you move to deny the appeal and to grant the permit. >> on the basis of. >> would you care to state a basis. >> on the basis it that conforms to the residential design guidelines. >> we have a motion from commissioner fung to uphold the permit that it conforms with the residential guidelines. >> on that motion commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda commissioner wilson thank you. the vote is 4 to zero this permit is upheld open that basis. >> i'm going to recuse myself. >> we're going to call the last

item lisa versus the department of building inspection protesting the issuance on october 30th to frank and wife notice to violation add two new rear view windows and replacing deck as required i mean, i'll start with the appellant. >> good evening commissioner president lazarus and commissioners, thank you for your consideration of that appeal i am lisa i live next door to webster in the machinery we've owned our owning home for 10 years and condominium to raising our kids our kids attend public schools in the marina and my

husband is not here he's with our kids 3 kids our family calibers about the marina i feel like the planning department and the building inspection have everything they need to make a proper determination in summary the work on webster street shouldn't be allowed it was not properly permitted and it attempts to go beyond who was approved in the 02006 variance decision in summary that are 3 key problems the first, the permit holders are expanding beyond the envelope by expanding the southern side balcony and addressing a wall on the deck to seek to have a non-conforming

rear edition and in violation of the variance and second the permits holders have demolished the edition yet they've over the counter permit didn't notice glossodisclose the details of the administration being made versus the 2006 variance and plan that are on record with the city this includes their permit - intention to have a new window plan and add a skylight and install new electrical and third in submitting the plans the permit holders have absorbed from the city the nature of the work being done and do not have the approval and inspectors. >> we have brought all those issues to the attention the permit holders many months ago and have curled up them to seek

the correct permit for the rebuild we've specifically told the permit holders they're not conforming with the variance and plans that are a matter of public record available to them and the incarcerating and they're architect to provide history on the rear yard edition that was build only webster street in a rear yard variance granted in 2006 i'll show you the grant variance right now granted to construct approximately 10 and half deep one story edition that on the property line at the rear of the building with a roof-deck on behalf of with approximately, one and a half deep by had to the balcony on the second floor the zoning administrator scott

sanchez who is not here corey is representing him verified the work expends into the rear yard just to show you a picture of this this is what the 2006 variance approved it is a small one and a half by had foot balcony and it is the larger edition with 9 roof-deck on behalf of the permit holder received an over the counter permit and the smaller deck is much larger we live by the way, right here since scott sanchez is out of town that week i'm going to read and put up on e-mail on december 4th he says bans our argument it

appears are the reconstruction previously approved as much s such a new variance is a required and a new balcony variance is required what you say it is note in the variance decision permit holders claim in their entitled do build a rear deck that was illegal constructed, however, it is permanently awe described subscribed to the building unless to conform to the variance is transferred from person to owner additionally it is exceeding the beyond the scope of the permit the first over the counter permit was permitted for less than 50 percent dry rot on the rear d