of this house when i gave him any brief and happy to consider that outside of the hearing allison park received no word from them at all until i got the respondents brief in my mailbox i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> mr. norris the permit holders indicated they - discussed with you the possibility of putting a different type of plant palate 2, 3, 4 the it is probably a denser visual screen did you respond to that. >> a great question i responded one of the issues with the flippers is their offered to put this in but no guy they'll stay hey you don't like the bam both you're free to cut it do you

only user down only to - that was done to placate the neighbors. >> thank you very much. >> i'll take rebuttal from the permit holder now. >> so again i want to touch on that letter from the neighbors i don't know when they wrote that letter they're out of the country i've been dealing with their daughter and sfonl in the backhouse met with them 1e6r789 and adapt with that list what they wanted from us we'll do those things they signed and this is you know i don't know if i care the interrogation from

dock you signed each party signed this was done on the 16 i want to say 16 of july so this is this letter to me is brand new might have been sent you know a long time ago before this amendment but per agreement they've taken themselves off the field regarding the other neighborhoods you have it in your brief this is an e-mail everyone was copied on they said great thanks we're also happy and that's where it evident not another message not another thing from margo except she has concerned with trellis on the back of her highway we 240e6r8d we'll meet and find a way to

move it we're doing everything we can to make sure everyone is happy marge goes house is behind ours the deck is invisible to her what else so regarding the fence i know that's been brought up i want to be clear that fence at least the way i understand this is a picture of the fence as you can see the finished does the boards face mr. norris house the gate has a lock on the inside that is attached to mr. norris house this fence belongs to mr. norris we offered to pay for it and do it ourselves that is not enough i'm not sure what we can do only get rid of the deck it fits between code and guidelines the city approved that

everything works so that's it i hopefully, you guys approve it. >> i have a question have you or your partner's ever bought an old house and refurnished it and sold it. >> i have not well, no i remodeled my own home where i live. >> but you pooled your savings to buy this house. >> correct. >> are you professional redevelopers. >> no, this is the first time me and my dad and mike has done it the other mike has been our design guy but me and my dad and friend have never done it we're not deep pocketed flippers. >> thank you anything further from the department i have a question for mr.

sanchez sanchez. >> thank you. is there any issues with putting a fence back there. >> no scott sanchez planning department the feet and height to follow the construction with whatever vegetation they want to plant. >> to that vegetation competency 10 feet. >> yeah. we have plenty of height limit. >> just asking. >> how many fences are the responsibility of both pertains are they limited. >> that's a thing the planning department would love to weigh in on but generally we'll look at it as which property has the design there are many ways to up to the time cut it who is property it is physically on. >> yeah.

>> did you have a question for intooufks than commissioners the matter is submitted. >> i'll jump in i'm inclined to uphold the permit but condition it on the addition of a 10 foot fence and planting of bamboo or some other fast growing at all plants as to the question i agree with you however is planting one could plant bamboo it grows 15 or 20 feet high whatever and the subsequent owner can come in and rip it down so we can only mandate the condition of the 10 foot fence so really - >> they could take the fence down too so really the condition

is a condition. >> yeah. >> the question is whether the appellants desires in relationship to their feelings of privacy equalities or it he exceeds the deserves of the property owner that is the of course, by us as to how to go with this and i don't find that there concerns for the privacy reached to the point where the property owner is not allowed to do code compliant. >> i agree we all live in the city and unfortunately privacy is an issue i have very large windows, in fact, the same integrity doors that the appellant has i don't

like and my neighbors have a self-reliant view of my living room and dining room this has come up this is one of the reasons we live in san francisco we have a dense population not uncommon that property windows overlook other property windows and specifically flag lots are extremely rare i've been in the industry for 17 years this is the second time i've seen it a do you have an opinion of the issues this home was empty for 25 years and people have gotten used to the home being entry we're in a housing crunch whether the lady was a senator senior a to herself i'd like have a larger issue walk down the flag pole on the back of the house thirty feet away i believe that the permit was issued

properly and again we can't control what happens in the future and the 10 foot fence didn't effect the second floor it didn't stop the views and the site line and the site line that is pretty much the same although a lot of us have decks we live in san francisco how many people are actually on their deck on the regular because i have 3 decks and can't remember the last time i got open with only i'm inclined to deny the appeal and approve the permit as it stand. >> question and to deny the appeal and approve the permit as properly issued fwip the departments. >> thank you. >> there's a motion to uphold

this permit on the basis it was properly issued. >> on that motion commissioner fung commissioner president lazarus commissioner wilson is absent commissioner swig thank you the vote is 4 to zero it permit is upheld on that basis. >> thank you. we'll now call item 8 howard versus the department of building inspection with the planning department approval property on fulsome street protesting the issuance on may of an alteration permit to extend the rear kitchen and rear deck and raising raise the building to accommodate parking and the side yard and new master bedroom bathroom and closet we'll start with the appellant you have 7

minutes. >> okay hello i've lived on fulsome for 3 years thanks for hearing this appeal i know that is late i want to say i'm in supportive redevelopment on fulsome with one expectation the to galileo goal will block the light and our daughters window the rear slaeltd deck is a problem someone it is an on it looks straight into our premise before me it is a previous concern we can't ignore you upcoming the following concern is the potential for noise from someone that is actually speaking on the deck or upcoming their literally the deck is 8 feet away from our bedroom window you're on the architect beverage

and it was 6 foot below the windowsill not 6 foot below i muttered 5 and change 4 foot 4 so someone standing on the deck has a direct eye line into our master bedroom it just you know i understand what you're saying about having a deck in san francisco we live in a dense city absolutely this is not a preexisting condition so i think it is something to consider i believe that the deletion of the deck from the plans will just avoid any enabling conflict going forward i understand that i know i met shawn and joanne on any bed over looking at the development they've agreed that is a problem and tried to come

up with a solution like a screen or per goal i think you call it they were looking at it is it was not a solution small business can look straight through and i think there were code issues they couldn't build that kind of thing so if you could put users yourselves in our position would you, you like someone that far from the deck at eye level while you're in our own bed that is not right to me that's why i am hear that's all i have i drew over this elevation so i outlined our master bedroom window from joe to be routine by the planning commission, and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote drawings a person of 6 foot standing on the deck as you

can see the eye level straight into our bedroom so upcoming this is the reason i show this to shawn and joanne 38 they tried to come up with a solution in good faith we talked about one way glass that didn't exist apparently a market for someone and this is why we're here couldn't find a solution the only solution to delete the deck from the plans and let the project move forward that's all i have any questions? mr. kennedy the windows you're referring to are parallel to the property line >> i'm defense attorney what howard and mr. howard the windows you're referring to are parallel to the. >> yes. >> in our master best testimony other windows. >> sorry on that side one on

the odds we have another. >> on the opposite side. >> rear yard and not oppose side of that rear window so one here and one just over there a much smaller window. >> anything. >> thank you. >> my name is joe i'm the architect of the project and jane and shawn kennedy are the owners the contenders purchased this house in 2012 this is right here in this photograph with the intent of

expanding for their handling this is the appellants property next door this is our block drawings of the subsequent property of the kennedy's house with the rear yard and the proposed roof deck and the appellants are their bedrooms located in the atmosphere and this is the window in questioning the appellant has a fairly large yard the kerpdz house is small with a small rear yard and the deck is a huge part of their home they'd like to keep it. >> this is the second floor second level for the deck and in relationship to the appellants window this is actually 10 feet away 8

feet away with the dr hearing as opposed to the dr conditions subsequent during the building permit reviewed combustible materials are foster away to move the deck 2 feet further than the conditions now 10 feet uaw the focus of the deck is actually to the north where there's a this view but there's he looks at to the north so the use of deck is for that purpose and this is no intent to look into the side in addition the appellant has 3 fairly tall trees good morning on the side yard and currently block the window and the design of this we didn't realize you

could barely see it in this photograph and this is the same photograph where we are standing approximately where the roof deck is and this is showing the appellants trees as well as our planter boxes into in addition to the protection for privacy actually proposes to plant the hoff seed that are hardy and fast growing and provides screening and those are elevations rear elevations showing the relationship between the master bedroom window this green planting and the roof deck and likewise this is a view from

darrell's windows or darrell's side again hocking his existing trees and the planting in the planter boxes in summary we have done the best we can to mitigate the privacy concerns while trying to maintain this opinion for the project i do want to point out he's offered to do lighter screening and the dr that took place and that's clearly what we suggested question, adjust even after construction to ata cut off the sidelines and also the screens will require a evaporates they exceeded the variable for the roof decks in the rear yard open space so we elected to the to do that

thank you. >> how high was the screen arrest the screens were 8 feet high. >> where were they located. >> where the planter boxes are now. >> on the south side. >> the south side of the planter and . >> wrapping the screens were discussed during the dr hearing and they were not provided plus required another surveillance that's another thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> did you have something you wanted to add? oh >> yes. >> hi jane kennedy we have

lived in that neighborhood for quite some time. >> could you prosecute speak into the microphone. >> we live in the where we live now we go out there and hang out on any back deck and you know we bought the house four a city view everybody times a city view that was the themselves it's to brew and stay in our neighborhood we love to live you know united states view is of the city not somebody's bedroom window that's my only point. >> from my understanding i'm jane kennedy the view that dearly is saying we can see into the window i have no deserve to look that way not to line you were the site we've done our due

diligence and provided solutions and recommendations that will more suffice the privacy issues but we've been residents a long time we have a small lot as storm said but want the city view. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department subject property within the rh2 district in the sgrts that was discretionary review that was filed that underwent the section notification and variance were required forefront setback and rear yard the structure on which the deck was subject to the variance part of giving of the variance that was granted was imposed by the commission to have that

landscaping there that commission voted to take dr and that landscaping noted the adjacent property is a legal non-compliant structure into the rear yard also some of the issues that were somewhat mitigating and don't use that in an environmental sense but the issues that the deck itself is a deck that is assessed from the master bedroom they have a deck at gay that is assessed by the kitchen probably that would be a patio being wild used and the elevations in relation color in the previous case a great difference that thought appellant and the thought subject property more likely you'll be in the subject property onto the subject property than the other way

around note by the project manager or project sponsor but take dr shifted further when it went through dbi dbi said they need a further setback more than that 5 feet that brings it further away so the police vehicle considered and exhausted approved there is impacts think light it comes to the privacy concerns that were raised here so with that i'm available to answer any questions. >> mr. sanchez we saw a drawing that indicated that the deck is less than 6 feet below the

ceiling the bedroom, in fact how much further blow is the deck than the sill of the window of the appellant. >> i would like to defer to the diagrams that were prepared by the project sponsor for this dimension but relative it is lower but the subject deck is lower than the apartments floor so i don't know the exact dimension but the permit holder can provide that on the previous plan and come back on the 3 minutes. >> if it is less than 6 feet than you know there's merit to the argument that if somebody choose not 6 feet but if you were 6 feet which is not an unusual height as - and average for that a male is less than 6

feet. >> i'll say that if the sill was 8 feet above the deck is more amp than 6 feet we're looking into the bedroom that's why i asked that. >> i understand pie and the other issue for me is that in your opinion if the deck was cut unlawful and shortage or shortened from 8 feet down would that a mitigating opportunity. >> that was the position of the planning department the project as originally proposed met relevant guidelines and the commission reduced the i am not we think that is acceptable as is and certainly getting to be of a certain size it is loose

it's feasibility as american people open space. >> we saw an open space i believe the house what say was in the richmond - the sunset where was a very short deck. >> i think that was smaller than that wasn't it. >> 8 feet that was the last case. >> yeah. the last was 5 by 18 or so, i mean. >> i'm not disagreeably with our point i'm trying to look at all sides are the position of the department it is acceptable. >> what would the architect reference the variance to put in the screens. >> this portion of the building located in the rear yard so any addition beyond what is here the evaporates has been issued a screen that is within the rear

yard would require a variance because that - the screen would be on top of the proposed structure and it wouldn't comply with the rear yard compton part time. >> it is only for a rail height. >> it is what was approved so there was nothing that was granted on the variance for anything greater than that. >> you mentioned the appellants property is illegal and non-conform was that there a variance issue for building in the rear lot and i didn't look at the record but the amount of the structure it is existed prior to the requirements and i can look at the records to see if there are recent vaurnsz but

my assumption it is compliant. >> it was just built that way. >> eject thank you. >> mr. duffy. >> joe duffy dbi i didn't hear building code issues in any brief or discussion i'm available to answer any questions but it looks like the building permitted was approved. >> okay. any public comment? >> my name is valerie i live next to the kennedy's today i find them to be very courteous and respectful and quiet neighbors their dining room window faces my laundry room and their master my became and their deck my deck i never feel

infringed upon they're very respectful and understand the tightness of spaces in san francisco and i had had think they do a nice job have never making me feel uncomfortable in my own home. >> thank you. any other public comment? >> valerie johnson they used to have 332 fulsome street that we had planned to you know make a better place of and raised out first you know - (inaudible) i think