i will let him have a few words. >> yeah i don't know change happens and i can understand her concern. but i know who i am and know all the neighbors i have had in the past and look forward to the neighbors i will have in the future. and i -- there will be a deck there, there it will be something to look at. but i don't think it will block her view. complains about impeding the light are far-fetched and excessive. if you notice if you will notice the orientation of the house, you will see that -- so you are looking just east of

south. right there. the back of my home faces pretty much due north. so the sun sets in a fashion -- sorry, rises in a fashion like this. there is literally no effect on the natural light. and as far as the enjoyment of it, i personally think it would be great everyone would have a deck and we could pass off a cup of sugar to each other. and i guess that's not the environment i am moving into with my neighbors. i ask that it be upheld. and about the strong winds and as an avid surf from march to august, it's the blue bird days and not to render a cafe or what she has you thinking it will be new and a good egood adition and i

want to be a good neighbor. >> thanks. >> mr. housel just as a question, are you still willing to make a compromise? >> you know -- $10,000 of mortgage payments and a rent i am paying and a structural engineer, that ship sailed to be blunt. i put my hand out and try to be reasonable, i may still have to change my mind but don't want to be handcuffed to it. >> that's just a request and congratulations to homeownership in san francisco. >> thank you and hope i don't go broke. >> but keep in mind these will be your neighbors for a while. >> i understand and i have lived all over and i have made good

relationships. and she's pinned me as a bad neighbor off the bat when i am not. >> just a question. >> any further from the departments? commissioners the matter is submitted. >> we are looking at you. >> we know about decks. >> it's not that i don't support decks. i support small decks. and you know -- people said that in a number of different ways to me. and the issue, and i still feel it that you build something for yourself. which is fine.

and it's code compliant and it's good for you. but i like to minimize the impact and whatever you build on your neighbors. the problem with this particular case is that any deck out looks at the rear of her building. doesn't matter how wide it is. and i sense that the privacy issue is probably the greatest. because if you don't want somebody looking into your bedroom, you will have to close the drapes. or blinds or whatever you got. you know. and -- this deck most of it at any size lines exactly with her property line. that's the problem, i understand the need of some people to have some outdoor space. and you know i would support

that. i am not sure in this case i would support the size of it. and if he's willing to rethink his offer, i would support a minimum compromise. recognizing that any deck will have a view into the rear wall of her building. >> do you think reduction of -- excuse me, four feet as proposed is a reasonable one? >> i think it's reasonable because it allows the permit holder still to have any type of activity he wants in his deck. whether the kids play there, whether a barbecue or chaisse chair. >> give them both. >> i would agree with commissioner fung. i agree with the statement that was made earlier, that this is san francisco. and this is an urban

environment. and privacy is something that is often an issue in an urban environment. and i don't think there is any way to get around in that configuration. some interruption of privacy, however, i would support it if the permit holder would shorten the deck by four feet as he offered initially. >> i am close. i do support outdoor space. i believe that the permit holder has done all that is required. and that this is a fully compliant deck. i am not sure if i would force him to do it or it would be nice if an olive branch went out

in good faith for his neighbors. i am kind on the fence regarding that. >> i am more towards you than the other. i am not sure you would force him to do it. i think that he put the olive branch out there and it was rejected. though not rejected by everybody, so -- >> i do think it would be a good compromise and i still think that's a large deck. >> yeah i think he is compliant. so it's a close one. >> before we make a decision maybe we can hear from the permit holder. would you like to step to the podium? sorry about that. sorry. you see the dilemma we have here? >> i do. >> so -- maybe you can could have some input before we make it decision. >> i feel like it mostly boils

down to a change. and i understand i literally moved smack dab in the middle of -- >> people that have been there for a while. >> 10 neighbor that is have been there 20 to 30 years. and i am the youngest guy with a potential threat to the neighborhood. i get that nobody likes change. but i feel i am not granted the benefit of the doubt in the efforts i made so far to be a good neighbor. one thing to take into consideration regarding the set- set-back of the home. it's older 1940 docher homes and it has a setback on one side this is pretty good the appellant's setback, three feet.

and curtailing back four feet leaves me with 11 and 7. >> 11 and 8. >> 11 and 8. and i pencilled it out and -- it's quite more of a concession than i wanted. renders this portion a lot less useable. i think one other thing to think about too the degree to which the renderings that she provided don't adequately show the setback. >> i know this is tough, and we don't usually give a shot. >> i would go two feet. >> okay. in a perfect world. >> okay okay. >> thank you. >> my fellow commissioners, will two feet suffice? >> works for me.

>> doesn't for me but someone else can make the motion. >> so -- >> you are proposing it so go for it. >> to grant the permit deny the appeal. >> granting the appeal. >> granting the appeal. >> and upholding the permit but on a condition. >> on the condition that the total area in the back to be reduced to two feet from the plans that we have been submitted. on the basis that -- >> in keeping with the environment of the neighborhood. >> yeah with the open space and rear yard. >> and to be clear then

commissioner, the two feet is pulling it away from the neighbors property line two feet. >> no from the rear lot going towards the property. so the length. >> okay. so it's pulling it in the rear from the holder's property. >> no from the rear of the permit holders property. >> the building wall two feet in from the building wall. >> on the basis that this change is in keeping with the neighborhood mid-block open space.

>> there is a motion on the floor from the vice president to uphold this permit on condition that the deck be reduced by two feet towards the permit holder's building wall rear building wall-i think. on the basis that this change is in keeping with the mid-block open space. four votes are needed to impose this change. on this motion to uphold this condition, fung. >> no. >> lazarus. >> no. >> commissioner wilson.

>> yes. >> commissioner swig. >> aye. >> thank you. the vote is 3-2. the motion passes however, the city charter requires four out of five votes to impose any change to a departmental action. >> the motion failed. >> the motion failed. does not pass. >> sorry four votes are needed to impose any change of the department action. absent another motion the permit would be upheld as is no new changes. >> i will move to grant the appeal and condition it on the basis that four feet be removed. >> same configuration towards the permit builder's rear building. >> that is correct. >> and the basis is the same or different? >> the basis is to mitigate the

impact on the key lot. >> okay. >> okay. so now there is a motion on the floor from commissioner fung to uphold the permit on the condition that the deck be reduced by four feet towards the permit holder rear building wall. and this is on the basis as to mitigate the impact on the appellant's key lot. four votes are also needed to impose this change. lazarus. >> aye. >> honda.

>> no. >> commissioner wilson. >> no. >> commissioner swig. >> aye. >> thank you. the vote is 3-2. same situation as before. the city charter requires four out of five votes to impose any condition on a departmental action. so absent another motion this permit would be upheld as is no new changes. >> make another motion same for three feet. >> three feet. we went from two to four i am going for three. >> there is a motion -- your same basis? >> we can use either one. >> mid-block open space.

>> motion from vice president, now this is to uphold the permit to reduce the deck by three feet towards the permit holder's rear building wall on the basis that this change is in keeping with the mid-block open space. commission fung. >> aye. >> president lazarus. >> aye. >> commissioner wilson. >> no. >> commissioner swig. >> aye. >> thank you. the vote is 4-1. this permit is upheld with that change. three feet in towards the real building wall, thank you.

>> welcome back to the may 6 2015 board of appeals, we are calling items 13 "a" and 13 "b," first appeal by dorothy larson and second by peggy snider both are protesting a project at 910 carolina street. protesting the issuance on march 20 2015 to leon kemel of a permit to erect a building three story, single family dwelling with 4,848. the first appellant, mrs. larson, you have seven minutes to make your case. >> can i make a note we were

told that the plans changed again. >> speak to the microphone. >> i want to make a note that we found out that the plans were changed again, we haven't been notified. i was told about this two minutes ago. this is typical. >> okay why don't you make your presentation. >> okay. >> or are you asking for a continuance? >> no we really want to have these plans changed completely. because the house is completely out of size for the neighborhood. okay, good evening, i am dorothy larson, the owner of 906 carolina street i am here to show the size of this enormous project at 910 carolina street and to straighten the board of appeals with the information. and i tried to get in contact

with the owner a couple of times and never got response from the e-mails issue so my main contact was their contractor. and i notified them about the massive scale of the house and the loss of light. and let me know that the design team recommended the removal of the top floor. and his e-mail in february 2015 and that the house lost its floor, but i responded that it looked the same four stories. my property did gain some light in the front, and i appreciate this, however it would be better if the upper floor was setback. and i would like to start by letting you know that i plan to be at the discretionary review

and i woke up with my face paralyzed and i was not able to attend. no one said that the discretionary review would be scheduled after 5 p.m. or that an agenda online. what happened on that evening, i found this through the video, that five out of six packets sent was not put on. the commissioners didn't see the e-mails until the hearing started. they didn't have time to review all the e-mails and we as neighbors thought this was unfair. because our voices weren't heard. i am here tonight to go over my concerns and you see that a single family house of a home of 4,848 is not compatible with the surrounding homes and the project does not follow the

topography and the loss of light to adjacent properties. my building here it is on the slide, is less than 1500 square feet. it's under rent control and houses three families. this story in front steps down with two storyies in the back. it follows the topography of the hill. the corner home at 900 carolina street. right at the corner. has 1,954 square feet with two balconsies in the front and two in the back. it's third floor which you will note is only one room. so the third floor on the top is only one room. and steps down in the back. and it follows the topography of

the hill. we have first and second home with balconyies in front and back and then we have a single-level home with two storys in the rear. this is going to be the south side of the lot. and and -- next to that we have a three-story building. on the third floor is the set-back. it is three stories but the third story is setback. when i read through the discretionary review analysis found in objective 1 housing sites to make for adequate means, official for affordable housing. i don't believe that a house of

this sign meets that. objective two, to respect the neighborhood character. it does not support the neighborhood character. and to emphasize beauty and respectability and respect existing neighborhood characters. none of the homes have four storys on the back of carolina street and all adjacent homes have step-down designs. and the attorney for the homeowner says that the property has the same depth and has limited impact light and air to the property. and so and therefore has impact the light and air to the property. i wonder what plan she is

looking at -- >> excuse me if you can fix the monitors they are scrolling. okay. >> actually i didn't want to interrupt you, i noticed that the permit holder's attorney i need to make a discloser. as i made earlier this evening, oh god i just lost my disclosure. here it goes i wish to disclose i have an existing business relationship with the law firm of ruben and junuous, and i have represented the counsel but this will not have any effect on my decision today. >> okay. so here's the plan. and the project goes beyond my building and then a pop-out that goes out additional 8 feet-4

inches. their property will go beyond my property. so the building goes deeper than my property by almost 10 feet. under the design site design the rear yard is the building articulated to minimize impact to light to adjacent properties. does it minimize the impact of privacy to properties -- no to both. remember my building is only two stories. the project should be no more than three stories in the rear with the set-back. here's the problem. and here's the fix. i have this on? >> overhead. >> i have -- overhead. okay.

i am losing time -- [bell] so here's the problem, here's an outline of the property now. i made some changes to the bottom, to the pop-out being that back end and make reductions and have some balconies. and with the new front you can eliminate the roof deck and it's more compatible with the neighborhood homes, please give this project deep consideration -- [bell] >> that it? >> finish your sentence. >> deny the approval home and the spec home will be considered a large home and sell quickly. i am not trying to stop this project but to get this house not to drastically change the character of the neighborhood and blend in with the neighbor homes. >> i have a question regarding the discretionary review why

did you not file for discretionary review? >> we did file and i was going to be here at the hearing, but i woke up in the morning and paralyzed my face half of it and i went to kaiser and couldn't talk. >> that's a good relationship -- reason. >> i didn't have a chance to come up and speak and tell people about the difference between the neighborhood houses and this huge house. >> so you would be happy with what you just presented on the screen. >> well -- >> if there was an adjustment. >> yes, because we can go with it just as long as we reduce the overall size of the

property. >> just wanted some guidelines. >> yeah. >> thank you. >> we will hear from the other appellant now. mrs. snider. >> okay overhead projector -- sorry. i just put something on the overhead projector. hello, i am peggy snider, i filed this appeal for two reasons.

first the planning department to relay the design issue -- am i talking to loadud? >> no we were having a problem with the screen. >> and for inaccracy of the city policy and secondly that my neighbors and i didn't have a fair hearing and denied our due process. let me first describe the procedural errors in the planning commission hearing. neighbors were given a date to provide written material and provided it by that date. i personally had several conversations with staff before delivering my letter eight days before the deadline.

and there was a statement that one neighbor submitted a letter and because nine other neighbors were not presented in the packet. i watched the video, and staff in two sentences said that neighbors addressed concerns about size and height and privacy, as our letters were passed out. and immediately went on to say how the processor had dealt with the project as if our concerns were dealt with. normally in quasijudicial hearings those letters would have been provided and the staff's report was inaccurate and the speed that was delivered was a clear indication