. >> welcome to the wednesday, july 22, 2015 no, it's yes wednesday, july 22, 2015, meeting of the san francisco board of appeals the board president is ann lazarus this presiding officer and joined by commissioner vice president honda and commissioner swig and commissioner wilson will be absences today to my right it the deputy city attorney that provides the board with legal

advice and mr. pacheco and mr. alec our legal process clerk and cynthia goldstein the board's executive director also joined by representatives that have cases before the board jav us the enforcement enforcement and legal affairs management division of taxis and assessable services and be joined by scott sanchez that represents the planning department and planning commission and senior building inspector at this time mr. pacheco go over the guidelines and will conduct the swearing in process. >> please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones and other electronic devices are prohibited. out in the hallway. permit holders and others have up to 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal.

people affiliated with these parties must conclude their comments within 7 minutes, participants not affiliated have up to 3 minutes - no rebuttal. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of the minutes, members of the public are asked, not required to submit a speaker card or business card to the clerk. if you have a question about the schedule, speak to the staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow we are located at 1650 mission street, suite 304. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78. dvds are available to purchase directly from sfgovtv.

thank you for your attention. we'll conduct our swearing in process. if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and say i do. please note: any of the members may speak without taking the oath pursuant to the sunshine ordinance, and thank you. do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> thank you. >> thank you item one is general public comment that is more anyone that wants to speak on a matter of the board's jurisdiction not on tonight's calendar any comment

under number one two is comments from commissioners anything commissioners seeing none item 3 is the boards consideration of the minutes for july 20th additions, deletions, or changes or anything on the minutes if not have the approval for the board minutes so moved. >> any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, then mr. pacheco call the roll there's a motion on the floor from the vice president to adapt the july 15, 2015 minutes on that motion to do you want commissioner fung commissioner president lazarus sxlz is absent commissioner swig thank you the vote is 4 to zero those minutes are adopted >> thank you item 4 the rehearing request for the taxi

permit the board received a letter the attorney for the appellant requesting a hearing which was decided on june 24th, 2015, at this time the board voted with the commissioner fung and commissioner vice president honda and commissioner swig absent on the basis of the subject permit was xhoipt rescinded the motion failed after failed to modify the rest indication by default commissioner swig you indicated you watched the materials of the procedures; is that right. >> you can participate we'll start with the attorney for the query you have 3 minutes. >> good evening, commissioners heeding my opponent and i can agree ton page 3 of their brief

where they say that at purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest reversible error in the law or facts here sfmta contributed by not printed in the record full and accurate information sfmta suggested for instance that mr. speakers shall address their comments to the commission as a whole and neither the police commission nor the la had gotten something for nothing by transferring the original manchester he worked for 20 years in the taxi destroy to hold that medallion whether the gentleman would have taken time off and sfmta said he would have participated in our program, however, sfmta didn't direct i am him to do so instead sfmta profited by collecting a transfer fee

more was the permit fail a windfall for your client if you were doubled into into the ada program he could have sold the permit sfmta claims that my client continues to earn in that case income as a regular medallion holder he e sfmta put restrictions on the permit and limit its hours of operation is he is the only driver and scant make money by leasing it if the 4 year permit is recognized he can only work for someone else more is it reissued since the program is a discontinued if this permit is revoked this small business is out of bizarre more or less importantly sfmta has led the commission to

believe it sets a precedent by allowing on ineligible permit holder to hold and permit, however, we've seen no data and we believe there maybe others sfmta reluctantly not limited to no other permit holder has been revoked for providing inadequate information upholding this sets a persistence that put at jeopardy 9 thousand permit holder for similar violations sfmta agrees that a man and woman fact is a reason to grant a rehearing and it is manifest if it oversight body didn't have the correct information we urge you to take the time as this matter is extraordinary and deserves our

thoughtful review. >> thank you. >> mr. murray. >> good evening commissioners jav vice murray enforcement legal manager at sfmta according to the rules of the board of appeals except in expired case the board may grant a rehearing only about san francisco ethics commission have arisen granting a rehearing request is an extraordinary remedy in this situation while heed to reality this we believe the matter was closed no new evidence as has been presented and no new offend not reasonably considered or discussed has been preferred

they're asking for more time to convey a better argument or a different argument perhaps i'm sure it is better but beyond that no new evidence has been presented what has been present a dissatisfaction with the board rule and that didn't equal to a grant a new hearing request and in their briefing the appellant want the board to propose briefing on policy regarding the sfmta and future policy that may or may not be set up that's you know whether it is not in the purview of the board necessarily but again those are things that could have been brought up at the time of the hearing if their genuine issues and not relevant to the permitted mr. ayatollah received money for emphasis medallion and

obtained a new s permit medallion through a mistaken through an arrow and has been operating for about a year at this point, we're pulling that medallion what can due to the mistake the board or hearing officer below agreed it is yes, a permit medallion cannot hold this particular permit and this board agreed or this board upheld anyway, the decision to allow the medallion to remain revoked for the hearing officer judgment there is nothing new it is an opportunity to relitigate the issue once again so we ask the board deny this rehearing request and uphold the permit s-29 a i have a question out of

the hundred and 40 permits issued in the pilot program were there a hundred and 40 permits issued. >> that's correct i'm sorry 4 the s permit yes about hundred and 40 plus or minus a few. >> the other question if this gets permit gets revoked will that one s permit be reissued or resolve itself. >> it won't devolve assuming we implementing eliminate the program that will be repurposed to be resold to a new medallion holder. >> okay. >> but we've been authorized to have a certain amount of medallions on the street we can't took that off we have to go in front of our board to do so. >> thank you. >> thank you any public comment

on this item? okay. seeing none commissioners the matter is submitted. >> commissioner at this point the bar has not been reached in terms of in my opinion by the new information on the manifestation i would not support a rehearing. >> i agree. >> i do agree i voted this against this initially i concur with commissioner fung the required information for in manifested justice has not been met. >> move to deny the hearing request. >> thank you mr. pacheco. >> there's a motion on the floor to deny this hearing

request. >> on that motion commissioner president lazarus commissioner vice president honda commissioner wilson is absent commissioner swig thank you. the vote is 4 to zero this rehearing request is denied and a notice of order shall be released. >> item 5 another rehearing the subject property on valencia street the board got a letter from the attorney for steve requesting a rehearing decided on june 24th, 2015, at a point the board voted to adopt the revised as amended it is a trust the holding to erect a 5 story parking building with ground floor area queries attorney and

ma'am, executive director i was to the present for the last hearing i have reviewed all of the television transcripts of this i have reviewed all the documentation that was prepared of every single one of those hearings copious hours. >> wow. i'm impressed. >> she said that the fellow commissioners - i had to perform anyway, i feel fully educated and prepared on the subject. >> thank you. >> thank you, thank you that's impressive it back to 2013 again commissioner president lazarus and members of the board steve williams representing the appellant hopefully, the board read my written submittal we're here to ask a renewal for a new hearings when the supreme court

granted the neighbors petition issued a writ to set aside its decision and ordering the board to give the neighbors a new hearing not to institute only the consideration of written finding the consideration of the written finding is a limited procedure that prevents a party from being heard on the merits only to one comment on the proposed written finding after a hearing on the merit two submit obama only 3 pages double spaced of briefing no exhibit and 3 addresses the board for 3 minutes on the proposed finding that's noticing not wasn't the board intended the court found it violated its rules the court didn't find that on page 2 lines 24 through 26 the court found a violation by reopenly the

hearing on its merits and specifically on the issue of the housing affordability act the court found the board relied on the act to issue it's final decision on page 3 line 13 through 16 of the order because the board enrolling we opened the hearing and allowed new testimony and merits the only way to correct that grant the neighbors an opportunity to be heard in the case the board changed it's collective mind on the case sometime after the original hearing december 11, 2013 and february 26th no additional evidence of testimony was received other than on the h aa and the boards position that it never relied that the h aa not mentioned now

in any of the finding as it states in the boards rules in order to preserve the supreme court e stribt all evidence the board considers must be submitted only at a public hearing that's what the appellants a chance to present the flying merits we have the opportunity to change the boards minded again to pursue do scared it our original appeal was being was granted in december of 2013 so we ask the board to grant us that rehearing. >> thank you thank you. we hear in the permit holder mr. ruth for the record. >> good evening madam president and the judge stated in admits

writ they received a fair hearing and i was there the only thing i wanted to know how you bridge the analytical gap with reference to the h organization a and the testimony you heard and how you applied to the case, no new information or evidence and there's no manifested injustice we ask i deny this request for an appeal any questions? >> thank you anything from the departments no? no that is any public comment no public comment then commissioners the matter is submitted. >> i guess might be stephen is not enough the same opinion and no new information or manifest

injustice has a threshold incentive therefore i'll not support it. >> having just gone through a crash course on that item for several years on it arbitrations of the board the commissioners are nowhere else present i if i were sitting on the board i would have attended the meeting i missed i would have voted in direction of the board i see no new evidence to differ from that direction. >> you concur the criteria of manifest justice has not been met and i believe that this project has been fully vetted so i'll not support a rehearing. >> move to deny the rehearing

request. >> thank you mr. pacheco. >> there's a motion on the floor from commissioner fung to deny this rehearing request commissioner president lazarus commissioner vice president honda commissioner wilson is absent commissioner swig thank you. the vote is 4 to disclosure this rehearing request is denied and a notice of decision and order shall be released. >> thank you. >> item 6 is appeal holly smith versus the department of building inspection with the planning department approval on pine street for testing issuance on may 2013 to church of an alteration to remove and parapet on the east bathroom to accommodate the third year

window from the property line we will starts with the appellant or representative. >> thank you madam president and members of the board i'm robert c ap listen i n the appellants attorney we're asking for the clients neighbors property contiguous to her building on piney assume you've read the briefs i the two things in the briefs i so you get alternative remedies there are a number of issues pending that have not reached you if it becomes necessary to file another appeal on subsequent permits i didn't raise those i'm aware of your jurisdiction i want you to know the issues i understand the permit cancel issued limited to the continues in that permit i have several points to raise with regards to

that the first point has has to do with with the roejtd roof of the bathroom edition modestly made to my clients neighbor home that is an elevated structure on supporters it republics to the clients neighbors wall to her wall it accommodates a bathroom and in its original condition that parapets those have to come down and the permit say the conditions on the permit also says that the roof of the bathroom has to be taken to an elevation that is under the windowsill of the subject window that is the window on the third floor of my clients building from the drawings submitted to you by opposing council it appears to us the leading edge

of the roofline enter sects the sill it this may sound trivial but the leak problems that my client as endured as a direct result of the improvement in 2002, it the crucial we need to have adequate flashing between the edge of the roof and my clients property the direct rainwater away from my clients property there is no reference in the permit about this condition of the location of new roof no reference to flashing we want there to be enough room between the under side of the sill and the top surface of the roof when they get down to have room to accommodate flashing that keeps the rain water off

any cloys property that's huge point number one also it is our belief that when the curative work is done by my clients neighbors on the roof reframing will be required we don't see any requirement in the permit for a framing plan or a nailing plan or any other details recommending to the location of the roof just before it needs under the sill requirement we want to have that my second point has has to do with with the planter box i seen it was a large planter box put up next to the wooden sided building she began to experience

water leak problems the department found the location that have that planter box against or close to my clients buildings wall was a violation the permit said you have to pull it way but the permit if say that the planter box must also be pulled away that foundation is part of the cement complab slab the cement slabs butts and touches the wood that is desiring of the clients building the architect said the cement to wood content is transcribing to rot and is impressionable we want added to the planter box it the planter boxes foundation part of slab in which the planter box stood tsa has to be pulled bye back from the building 6 inches those are the

specific requests we made for the curative alternative remedies we're seeking and finally on a good note that opposing council and i have been working and we modestly might have this resolved by couldn't do it in the time left therefore we requested a decision based on the power points i want to call up my clients architect to give further testimony. >> thank you excuse me. >> excuse me. i have a question after making maybe you can set yeah. okay - >> good evening my name is jim i'm a registered architect in california lived in san

francisco for 40 years and schar for the telegraph hill dwellers in 1994 to 2000 i'm familiar with the stoops to the neighbors i conducted the investigation of the vast built on the deck edition on pine when i first saw the addition i couldn't believe the construction in san francisco i reviewed the file and royals it didn't match the approved drawings that avoided the required planning department notifications for the windows the building inspection has asked the residents to lower the top of the roof to blow the existing roof sill on bye can i have a few minutes we think

that should be lowered to accommodate the sheet metal flashing along the edge the new drawings to the notice of violation doesn't have a demolition plan no nailing schedule formal the roof sheet or no mention of the flashing between the buildings i think that all of those should be included in the drawings for the project as if they intend to lower the roof. >> thank you. your time is up. >> so if you could fill out a speaking they're on the podium and commissioner vice president honda. >> navy maybe the architect or counselor can answer one of the briefs when the most of the work occurred in 2000. >> 2002. >> is there a reason it took until 2015 for this -

>> i didn't conduct my investigation until 2014. >> maybe the counselor can answer the question and i'm sorry speak into the microphone. >> my client was not tentative point one and two a copy of the letter to her asking her to consent a further of a copy of a responsive letter saying i approve if you look at the plans that were in 2002 the date of the letters i'm talking about i'll see that the plans submitted then are do not interfere at all with the windows of she had antenna active ear window blockage would not have been a concern i want you to know collateral to this appeal other concerns are water

leakage. >> the other question where this window exists is there a tenant. >> at this time it was a tenant and the tenant didn't have concerns. >> that's correct that's my understanding. >> okay. we'll hear from the permit holders council now. >> madam president and members of the board of panel i'm joseph i represent the residents in this action first, i'd like to respond there is no tenant in that window that is a hallway window a third year hallway with that said, window of a rental noted blocking any tenants verify whatsoever and i've been advised by the architect and contractors that property line windows don't have rights of use

my clients chuck and carol live on pine street the appellants stated the neighboring rental building and in 2002, the clients another bathroom and deck they got approval from their neighbor and they got approval from the city and the work was regularly inspected we invading made exhibits to our brief that shows all those things to be true and the building was regularly inspected. >> 12 or 13 years later she complained to the city the city found the plans were not submitted for a window in the correct location i want to make a clear i think there is the city inspectors can tell you

this we've had independent contractor and all the improvements are exactly in the plans that setback from the street the height setback from the neighbor everything is exactly in the plan the mistake was the location of the neighbors window but again, that's a property line window doesn't have any rights to view my clients contacted upon learning the nixon the tweblz were advised to seek a variance they've been there 13 years when they showed the neighboring windows, however, wanting to be good neighbors they decided to go ahead and get a permit they immediately moved the planter box not an issue

they hired architects and contractors got the permit immediately started the work, removed the roof of the bathroom to lower it so that it would be below the sill up to the edge the bottom of the sill thinking this satisfies the lady they preceded that didn't satisfy she filed a notice of appeal now the clients roof is covered with the tarp as far as the other matters raised by appellant they're not before this panel today mr. has green has filed a lawsuit and, in fact, there's leakage caused by my clients that's the proper place to litigate those matters

not this permit appeal most of the allegations are speculation and we look forward to taking care of them in the courts rather than here at this point, i'd like to introduce chuck and carol i want to say there no good reason to reject the opinion of the department of building inspection thank you. >> hi, i'm chuck. >> i'm carol we lived added pine street for 27 years during that time we've worked diligently to maintain and upgrade our property one upgrade was the addition of the main floor bathroom and the deck completed in 2002 we hired the structural engineer and signed off by the city multiple times during the construction process with the on the job and

including the final sign off for over a decade no complaint about your project. >> so as joe said at the end of last year, we received we were out of the country got back and received two unpleasant piece of the news one a notice of violation from the department of building inspection and we were glen eagle being sued by ms. smith so our preliminary focus was dealing with the dbi we talked with them and introouf and preceded to work on a solution as joe said the only issue what the 2002 plans in the process the correct location of

a third-story was shown in the wrong place so essentially we immediately reached out and hired an architect and contractor and hired a permit consultant was time was of the essence and they advised us essentially to apply for a variance that's the best course we look at the wording of the notice of violation there is room to do that we decided to bite the bullet and make our constriction consistent with what was shown on the 2002 in fwooth and got the permit and got a contractor we worked for one today efficiently i might add no coverage except for the tarp the parapet is begun we were toeflt non-flushed when we got the appeal of the permit we feel it is groundless and based

on no facts and we strongly hope that you will uphold our building permit. >> question this is guess nonsensical to the containment our neighbor is protesting the city issued a building permit based on the complaint so that in summary we would like to ask that the i'm sorry - you uphold our permit and deny the appeal thank you for your time. >> we have the architect and contractor if you have questions. >> is your permit deal with the foundation part of the planner that the they're indicating with the wood siding.

>> in the nov said the bathroom roof issue of the parapet the planter we moved immediately ourselves not the concrete portion; right? >> to answer your question prior to the concrete being poured there of the dirt and some bushes previous neighbor complained about the water going down into his wine incremental so the space between the houses was concrete taking out the concrete will expose the other side the ladies property open dirt again we don't understand why anyone wants to have dirt water gets in we're not aware of any violation

of butting the neighbors property. >> your dish disputing that the concrete at the base of the planter going against siding it needs to be reamendment it is concrete between two properties thank you regularly done all over the city. >> it is a faulty grade issue when the foundation is not where the ground level is you don't want water touching the baseline of the property. >> i don't believe this is the situation the situations water runs back to the back of the slopes. >> that was the question that commissioner fung asked concrete had directly to the joining side

of the property that's the question. >> i don't know if it actually touches it we're not aware of that we have pictures but there are slopes so any water runs off to the back and goes to the drainage at the back of the clients property. >> but the issue of the concrete is not part of nov not part of this appeal so why are we discussing this because this is not part of the appeal. >> it is partly of nov but no permit is riverside the nov only concerns our permit only concerns the issue of the bathroom roof. >> all right. as counselor mentions earlier it may come up later >> i want to make sure that we're addressing the issues that are in the permit. >> why not hear from the

department that will help. >> commissioners it is in the scope of the work of the permit. >> okay. thank you. >> introouf. >> good evening joseph dbi that building permit is a notice of violation focus to rove the parapet on the level of the became on the second floor to accommodate the neighbors in the third-story neighborhoods and the planter 6 inches from the property line the permit was taken around may 15 and went through the planning department over the review and in the plan checked by the building plan checked our structural and issued by the burton the 21st of

may 2015 notice of violation that was issued was issued by senior donald duffey on january 2015 and i'll read that it is probably pertinent to the case a complaint filed with 24 department regarding the property on pine street the wood planter box is close to pine street not permitted by the building code for the flashing when it is closer than 6 inches and the building permit out of window with the first floor with the deck and another permit is a revision to eliminate the skylights and recuse the bathroom showing the annexation below the window on pine street

site and inspection revealed it was covered partially 3 feet by a parapet wall corrective action to have the flashing planter box or relocation 6 inches if the neighbor wall and two the approval of the defendant i can't guess from the permit the 2000 and 2003 permit that required the inspections that was issues or issues on january 2013 building permit as issued by dbi i'll be asking it was upheld and find i believe the work started and was stopped because of of the permit but from the dbi point of view that was an complaint and i'll have a nov

permit to fix it i read the brief the flashing between the buildings needs to be resolved by property owners the gi didn't get in between the flashing they need to come up with the flashing we've discussed it many times on on the issues that's definitely anything to work on whether on the siding go with relations to the parapet we need to look at the code violates a newer complaint typically we see foundation to concrete paving and then the siding up a few inches maybe over the years the concrete and the planter box got put on it and the concrete contract that is probably needing to get looked at in my

opinion i'm available to answer any questions. >> i have not seen a photograph of that. >> thank you mr. sanchez nothing any public comment on this item? >> good evening my name is eric burke werts b e r k w it z i live on pine street and with relations to the tweerldz i'll give an observation from the front my wife and i have been amazed at the way the twerlz maintain their house the house is in fact at a pointing point of humor they do everything twice as well necessary take care of their garden it is perfect those are people that are not only an asset to the

neighborhood their house is the jewel of the neighborhoods everyone or everything is in the height of taste never over dub and they spare no expensive i'm astonished of all the neighbors chuck and carol are drawn to task for not up to snuff i don't know the details i am giving you angle example the building next to it is really the eye sore of the neighborhood we view the front and rear of the house pelosi paint not well minced garage and tree is not well done the attitude of the neighborhood the view of the neighborhood is twerlz heirs the jewel the one on the corner it is no a slum is going too far it is simply not

tentatively maintained there is so again, i'm a little bit precipitated that the owner of that building would be the one calling the owner the twerlz to task on questions of maintenance i just wanted to give you a prospective from the neighborhood itself thank you. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment. >> okay. seeing none then we will have rebuttal starting with the appellant. >> thank you madam president opposing coincidental when he addressed with rarpd to the location of relocated roof in the bathroom up to the evidently of the sill

we were sensitive on this because first of all that is not what the condition says it says under the sill and if the roof edge goes up to the sill we're going to have leakage problems you sound like a small item but my client has been living with leakages e lineations you can call her i dismiss those characterizations but leaks i urge the board to add to the condition has to do with with the location it is under the sill additional flashed second we have argued go i've heard fluff i said the name wrong sorry. >> only the at that particular

time box is involved i submit that the planter box sat on the concrete pa pad and concrete to wood content the existing direct content concrete to wood is unappropriated we like to have that removed to 6 inches and nothing further. >> counselor are you finished i'm sorry. >> yes. >> you said prior to coming to this hearing you were close to com to an agreement with the next door and opposing council and i have an incredible we had a deposition with a sweet spirit and in my view is time i suggested this is put offer into the next meeting if you're agenda permits the clients can't stand the leak of the present

condition of their roof being exposed and coasted are tarps i know this was put together in 2 3, 4 or 4 days that's the reason i'm here arguing right now. >> thank you. >> we can have rebuttal from the permit holders. >> we have a little bit of time left. >> do they. >> they say it was built according to the plans if you look at the final submittal increase no parapet and the roof comes into the drawings blow the windowsill but the final product as a parent so i wonder when they say it is built to plan what are they talking about the plan shows the parapet and the he finally plan in 2000, 2002 no parapet

thank you. >> now we'll hear if the permit holders rebuttal first of all, i'm not council for the twooerlz for the litigation i could have settlement decide i've a maid that clear settlement discussions shouldn't be revealed, and, secondly, the twerlz plans shows the bottom edge of the roof goes to the bottom them of the sill this is exactly where it is supposed to be again, all the other issues the concrete blow the planter box the planter box was moved and didn't rise above the ground those are red home sharers not

before the board put the roof back on and get their house no order. >> are you finished. >> yeah. >> do you know where building inspector duffey said of that's not before us of the appellants call a notice of violation will be issued for that and we'll be here all over again. >> it is a fact that exists you have a lot of shuktdz if you look at the brief you'll see what really occurred mr. herself green contract put a hole in the parapet roof and didn't flash it that calls for leaks and that's because of the roof in fact, if you want to get into the discussions even one he'll take out it so she'll not have leaks. >> that was a slightly

different issue you have a photo of where the concrete underneath the at that particular time a close-up photo where it rests against the wall. >> we didn't thinks that to be an issue at any time and. >> thank you thank you mr. duffy anything further. >> joe duffy dbi commissioners the concrete was not part of original complaint is if it comes up in the future we'll deal with that and donald duh iowa's i didn't was there not me an experienced inspector he'll resolve it there's another

complaint on 1949 we're dealing with and we've issued a notice of violation to deal with the fence coming through walls and stuff like this i wanted to make you aware of if it is not green before us but nov issued. >> just a clarify mr. duffy the planter location is part of the nov and the permitted that issue of the concrete against wood is not? >> it wasn't brought in the notice of violation and the planter box got moved and the inspector noted some reference but the completely removed and i don't have any current photos but it was mr. sanchez had a photo of the planter box sitting

beside the garage on a concrete pad it has been moved you'll have to ask them who moved it was too close to the wall for the purposes and i think they said they moved is 6 inches. >> that's fine. >> you know the base of the planter. >> we see that condition all over the city it meets the intersection and want a concrete foundation or the pathway whatever concrete to concrete is better so it would be simply a matter of hopefully concrete behind that they'll have to raise the ceiling we see it all the time it is pretty common common fixes an easy fix too. >> commissioners the matter is submitted. >> i'm not persuaded theirs

issues with that particular permit. >> this case is predominantly a single case the question of the property line windows is really the issue and i'm in agreement that per the code property line windows - the other issue related to similarly the smooth process beyond the property line as a result the planter open either side is i have no further question on the concrete issue i'm not prepared to over turn that permit. >> i concur unfortunately this is a

condition that existed since 2001 and 2 i think that at one point contractors have to build to plan at the same time this is gone on 13 years with people feel living in the property with no issues i hope you folks come to an agreement prior to litigation that gets pricey i see no problem with the permit as issued. >> i'll move to deny - >> huh? >> deny the appeal and uphold the appeal it was properly issued. >> thank you. >> there's a motion it on the floor to uphold this permit it was properly issued on that motion commissioner fung

commissioner vice president honda commissioner wilson is absent commissioner swig thank you the vote is 4 to zero this prosecute permit is you would on that base. >> item 7 is appeal north versus the department of building inspection with the planning department approval on 30th street protesting the issuance on may 26th to michael cramer and alex and others of an alteration permit of totally remold 72 hour about the laundry room and configures the second floor plan and adds a decadent this is for the notice of violation we'll start with the appellant you have 7 minutes. >> good evening. i'm tom north i along with my wife sarah own the property on 30th street first of all thank you for

taking the time my wife and i have worked hard to realize a dream and future raise a fame we appreciate the opportunity to have our concerns heard by the board i have 4 points i want to talk about today first, the concern of privacy of our interior living space and those of our neighborhoods as a result two the concerns of the integrity of the facade and 3 the categorical california environmental quality act and for our concerns about past and future behavior of the investors and owners just to dive into the privacy concerns if you can take into account the projector as the important point we want to focus. >> overhead please. overhead. >> should it show up.

>> hello overhead, please. >> hold on. >> there you go. >> okay. thank you. >> we're not getting the full length of the picture. >> line across the top 10 percent. >> it's flickering now.

>> it is more the flickering problem than the way it is displayed displayed. >> there you go. >> that's better. >> that's the best we'll have. >> all right. so thank you anyways this is from the guidelines that proposes proposed project should take into account the privacy to the neighborhood interior living spaces and just to demonstrate the effects on our interior living space as you can see those are the sightlines allowed by the deck and here's the looking both our exterior spaces our kitchen and dining room area which are very important and heavy used space as well as the vertical 2 hundred square feet as you can see the area of primary concern for us and give

us sort of a look at this and i'll talk about the changes in a second that is is the area in which the deck will go and there's a couple of things i want to call first of all there is a material difference in my opinion between an outdoor deck in terms of privacy versus interior windows when our out on the deck you're in a different enernex report context a window is for light a deck for hanging out sitting in a chair if you're a smoker or you're out there marcus books that is this area of concern is one of the key issues that someone is looking at over into your building and so to talk about the tree for a second first of all, the apple tree a banner for half a year in this picture, and,

secondly, the picture where the walls the yards a is going into 0 ours whether our responsibility for the owners in putting in a retaining wall but to put in a response time we'll probably have to take outburst the tree this is where the roof is i'm concerned if we remove the tree into the non-restricted winter time no blockage in terms of privacy that is not only a problem this is a letter of support from my neighbors to the west at 4089 of 9 and this is a problem inform them to go from here this puts our window in sites 15 feet to the areas with the 9 deck and this is part of our home as a retirees in our latest 70s we gravitated this is

the historical implications that is not how you view the deck you view the deck from the ground and this floor an actual have more effect on the all of the evidence of that hundred and 40-year-old hours house i mentioned i want to talk about the categorical exemption from the california environmental quality act for 9052 adapt by the planning commission and the issue i want to call out it appears my understanding to the structure will not be part of categorical exemption it unless it's 50 percent of the floor area of the addition if you look at the plan there is 6 hundred plus and existing square feet added an 85 increase 50 percent between the square feet and finally i want to talk about the

pattern of behavior it is concerting prior to this appeal and concerned about afrldz first of all upheld notice of violation and when the owners started the construction without a permit this is concerting because like there's a safety issue here why i can't understand why they allowed this to happen additionally you know it was kind of a made us feel violated a they were in charge took the washer and dryer from our backyard that led to a feeling of violation this is another example of the behavior and finally we've actually talked with the owners of 407 a a number of times before 9 permit was filed i don't have any

problems that the work would be entirely within the envelope they said this to the neighbors they were remodeling within the envelope i'm again not an architect a homeownership but the envelope has defined separation between the environment and a huge surprise to myself and my wife this was ultimately one big reason we filed this appeal so in summary there are new and usually impacts on the privacy of our neighbors interior spaces as a result of the deck the deck is a historical 12rib89 of this building and the feej didn't ply with the categorical comments and the investors have limited the patterns of disrespect for the neighborhood i'm equally concerned with their project

with that, i wanted to thank you for your time and i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> how long have you been there. >> since january of 2014. >> so did you do the improvements on your property. >> we are currently. >> it wasn't approved approved prior. >> there were additions at some point i don't know how or when. >> thank you thank you very much. >> we'll hear from the permit holders. >> hello good evening, commissioners thank you for hearing this out my name is alex and i purchased that house with my two friends and dad in march of this year we

purchased this house and we're not really the flippers we're made ought to be. >> excuse me. would you pull the mike a little bit closer to you. >> when we bought but house that was run down and mold and walls rotted the existing conditions were terrible conditions all the way around and additionally the lot is unusual it is a flat in the back behind mr. norris property assess through the walkway assess our crude plans as you can see as exhibit b show that the expansion we're doing within the structure we're noted actually goes outside the envelope we are building the lower level as you think habitual and we're making space liveable it is going it from 6 hundred and 46 square feet 0 a

basically small two bedroom home this is basically, what we're doing regarding the neighbors we've chatted with the neighbors and had half a dozen meeting and half a dozen e-mails the neighbors are completely okay with that regarding a letter that the gentleman - i don't know what that letter it is not current it wasn't signed or signed more dated i have an agreement with his neighbors that is signed here let me show the cover sheet here this is the signed agreement. >> can you turn it around. >> sorry. >> this is the whole agreement and this is the signature and it shows their names the people

he's referring to they've agreed to remove themselves i'm not sure why he's bringing them into this as well. >> regarding the privacy concerns the sightlines he's talking about there is a window there 1942 the the exact sightlines we're proposing a 6 feet deep deck to provide the house with minimal space the decking folks building the deck will inevade their privacy there are several responses first, the house the way it is confederate has the pipeline exhibit c shows the pipeline of the side of our house this is some more pictures this is the exterior of the

house - this is the window that will be where the door is so once we get going on this this is a view from the window - and back here are the doors he's referring to grandparent said this other person tree didn't have leaves one of the things we've offered to put a 10 foot fence offered to install fence with a tall bamboo that replaces that issue we've done all those things those don't matter to him this is pretty cool a picture we took standing on a ladder 5 feet if the house to gusts a sense of what if we were on the deck the line of sight you can't see into his house

regarding the where was i - >> oh, regarding the plan as well so when we met with mr. norris to shrink the deck and move the window to that's fine i'll go to planning and ask kelly that was the first person that helped us can we move the door and shrink the deck down she said absolutely not don't touch those windows their original with wood frame and impacts the neighborhood we're in dmrieps with that aspect we've doing every thing we can to appease them it is not sufficient i want to pout your house is surrounded by 8 houses 7 of them have decks that look at our how

is it not out of scope not strange to the area pictures in there i can show you additional pictures of the properties but it is completely within what the area looks like i'll show you some - >> this is a plat map so this is us those houses surrendered us deck, deck, deck this is the neighbor those - this is the neighbor who's letter he's refer to his front house has a deck and the rear house has a deck in the outer of scope completely within the context of the architecture of the neighborhood and kelly

wong who preservation agrees that that i object to show you pictures of the neighbors decks he have those as well in terms of outreach as i said we had plenty of the outreach and chat with the neighbors you have all those e-mails inside of our briefs we've got a lot more work to do we could not appease mr. norris i'll tell you when we offered to build the fence and the planters and the bottom of the hill bamboos he e-mailed me and mind- i was on all the e-mails never once said anything about planning to appeal he threw thank you. this out and now we're stuck one thing i'll mention the nov we had the permit somehow the and will fee didn't get paid we paid it and

they removed the nov. >> your time is up. >> mr. sanchez. >> well, we get to hear from the z a. >> scott sanchez planning department the subject property is unique with the zoning district the lot configuration it was probably built as a bridge originally built as the second building on the lot but it is at the rear a small access to the side around the appellants property that provides assess essentially land located but regarding the ceqa review it was appropriate reviewed by ceqa the preservation specialists it was

out dated we were advised our ceqa guidelines swlgs as well as our general policies and procedures we have a ceqa check list that was properly class one classified as an exception under second that allows for additions under 10 thousand square feet it is clear it is approved under ceqa the preservations concerns are real about the location of the door and preserving the exist windows and the location of the existing windows i conformed confirmed that was with our cooperated our this afternoon it has been in terms of ceqa code compliant and a unique lot but within the buildable area within the reduced size of the deck didn't trigger firewalls and otherwise

compiles with our notifications i understand the concerns by the appellant as a unique situation but i do find that the size of the deck being relatively shallow of 5 feet with about 19 foot and the back of the existing windows have not undue impact of privacy happy to hear there has been offensive made of what to address the privacy concerns to the satisfaction of the appellant but we believe that the project is code compliant and meets the relevant design i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> what's the category rating. >> it's a potential historic resource. >> and any idea how many flags are left in the city. >> i don't know.

>> very rare and i've only seen two. >> it is pretty rare. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> intrufk minute. >> commissioners joe duffy dbi the building permits was over-the-counter permit and fully remold two bedrooms and laundry room and remodeling and a deck at the front of the building permit was filed on the 11 of may 2015 it went through planning building dpw and mechanic plan check it had some fees got i think issues on the 15 of may and suspended on the fifth of june the permit seems to be issued

properly we had a complaint on the address date the complaint was filed the 21st of may 2015 and it was that there was doing unpermitted work on the street located in the back on 43 street has permits we reopened the complaint on the 21st of may and it seemed like the building inspector hernandez was out there he wrote up a notice of violation, however, i did note on the 28 of may i didn't recognize a permit was issued and going through plan the check at the same time so he abated the notice of violation it was opened and close within a few days i noticed a permit they may have gotten ahead of themselves between the issuance and pretty

much around the same time a day are two i'm available to answer any questions. >> thank you. any public comment? comment? >> good evening. i'm arithmetic banner my house actually sits occupy the property line of the back of this house so i'm the only one in the houses that didn't have a deck and so the issue i think is two-fold one it really is a privacy issue in that space that we all sort of feel like we're on top of each other because of the decks and the walls so for tom in the front who basically

it has an issue with the deck i mean that behooves the city to that about the minor things we can do to help the privacy of all of us question don't have to live close to each other and a deck having a deck is the same that it would be important for the city to say do we all need decks for privacy i feel infringed upon and the neighbors look down on me all the time the other point i'd like to add i think that having conversation with all the neighbors before construction starts is a good thing to do and in this case it would have really helped all of us if those are conversations were the new owners would happen before construction and the

issue why there was conversation with the neighborhood has to do with with the amount of noise of the construction that started at 7 in the morning a lot of banging and for many of us in the back it soils you know they're in our bedrooms and you know in our houses because you know of the noise so that was the issue really that led to the conversations with the owners who i might say will start construction later i hope you'll think about the privacy issue and how important to the people to have a deck versus the privacy of people having to live in the that we all have to live in i hope i'll consider that. >> can i ask a question you participated in the permit

holders mentioned they have held up conversation. >> i wasn't at those meetings i actually had work mergers to attend to at the hours i couldn't get to either one because of work and were you aware that the permit holders had asked to put a deck up prior to this hearing. >> oh, yeah. >> did you express complaints or ordinances. >> question found out after the permit we only found out any of this i don't know how many weeks after the banging started then of us knew anything depict for the construction i didn't know the house was empty i've been at my house for 25 years so the old lady that used to own it how is it was invisible anyway so we

didn't know anything was happening the whole row of us it was the banging and the construction saying what's happening and we found out there was plans and showed the plan and all that i don't imagine. >> the senior owned a a long time in effect on anybody else. >> no effect on anybody zero. >> thank you, thank you. >> next speaker >> mrs. johnson i have this has to do with privacy areas being that were trees

blocking the areas and some things solutions so the trees will grow there and this one of the speakers on the hill where the privacy is in use we need on this 407 and the apartment building inspector should look into selling those details and know to clarify thank you. >> is there any additional public comment. >> seeing none then we'll take rebuttal starting with the appellant you have 3 minutes.

>> all right. thank you very much a couple of things i want to touch on the size of the deck is not the issue but the backyard on the deck the more you see to call that out in is important mr. skaerts man said in the hearing they were not making adjustments outside the envelope it is not correct so i wanted to call that out generally we were not opposed to the investors giving the property adding square footage to make a profit we're asking we do that with respect to privacy i'll mentioned that the owners of the subject property mentioned agreement with everyone i didn't hear this is oifrn not the case i want to call it out with respect to the letter from brad and jack they're currently

in francis i wanted to tell the truth this is the problem they have it, it is more or important let's see i want to call out the sight lines are different so sort of hanging out watching the view this is a much sort of more than or more comboefrgz private issue than transient glances through a window i'd like to just call up this point out about this measure so again you know we talked about 6 foot and 10 foot fences this is outlined was it didn't materially effect the interior privacy that is unfortunate that would have been a great option that let's see i want to call out one other thing the conflict between the historical and

privacy that is important one shouldn't dismiss the office of the city administrator other from being considered i understand there are historical concerns with changing the deck but because this didn't mean our privacy issue should be ignored and one last thing about this lack of contact i sent an amending 3 weeks ago to the owners 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 d 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 we can it is a place of enjoyment to improve the lots in this area that the real planning department you know put into the you know another on the uses rooms probably the better yards and

they respect you for parking areas that we you know went down here and paid for that they say about the bathrooms and the things and that's not that's all i have to say thank you. >> thank you. we can take rebuttal starting with the appellant mr. howard do you have anything else to say i have 3 minutes. >> don't have much to say i really met john a few times we got along fine i don't have a problem with shooun on his district of columbia i'm concerned about maybe he's redeveloping the property will will upper market sell the property i don't know what is going to happen it is 8 feet

from my bedroom window that is my opportunity to stop it you know, i know personally shawn i've never met his wife i'm sure she's quite all right. too but i wanted to make that clear this is not anything personal only a deck a few feet from my bedroom window not a preexisting condition something we we have control over. >> mr. howard at this time if you want to reconsider a screen on that deck. >> i would consider a screen if it serves the function absolutely. >> the screen can only go back to the average of the rear yard property line beyond that that

the variance okay. >> so i'm not sure. >> it is 80 percent of the deck. >> okay. so i would not see that as a solution to to be honest simply simply because someone standing on the side of the screen looking straight in if it was a screen that blocked the view of somebody maybe 6 feet tall looking at our window perfect that's a solution great that works but screening 80 percent someone that wants to look into the bedroom window that's not a solution. >> can you offer up something mr. howard. >> sure. >> as mentioned we have quite a few of the windows 27 in our home we over look at our neighbors bathrooms and they look at us we're in an elevated

position we've gone with a roller shade during the daytime so from the interior to the exterior they can't see in but from me from the inside to the outside you can see out they can't see in i have a 13-year-old daughter that overlooks any neighbors i still want privacy we have an added treatment for a privacy so during the daytime we still get to enjoy our view and light with zero privacy issues at night when we turn our lights on in the interior we have a privacy button and it lowers the shade our master bedroom 7 of the homes can see our master bedroom so it is really nice having to be able to see the view in the

daytime and option for privacy at night. >> that is, i guess that's works for you if you could imagine in our bedroom our master bedroom we have a verify the best house that is why we're all here the best you can see you know so that's our verify at night time it is a spectacular view the only one from inside our house if he block that at night time you know yeah. >> if the lights are off on the inside you still see out at night is works in reverse. >> yeah. similar we looked one way glass solution if the lights are on smiled you can see you know -

>> that's the problem. >> for some. >> i understand okay and but you know from our prospective did anybody build anything looking at inside our house. >> just for conversation we built our extension both our neighbors filed a discretionary review i made the design notifications to suit both my neighbors my neighbors to my immediate north betsy carmichael his house his immediate concerns i'd like look at his home and now his deck looks at being so my whole house i'm quite aware of that. >> it didn't sound like. >> we still talk that's fine. >> it didn't sound like a great solution something that was

probably avoidable. >> it is it is what it is like i said, i said we live in an urban environment and have closed proximity to our neighbors it's all good. >> okay. thank you and any other questions. >> mr. alternating man. >> i want to point out a question about the windowsill height i manufactured that it is 6 feet from the sill to the window deck surface your question about the lattice and 80 percent of the screen the rear incline is at the wall of the back wall the bedroom to the door entire deck is in the rear setback but permitted less than 10 meeting feet in height anything above that requires a

evaporates so it required a variance you can verify that i want to point out wu we have an exist clearance for the property that does a pretty good job of screening the windows there is already privacy resulting in the conditions which are a huge consideration thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> go ahead. >> one other thing i want to say is that when they're talking about the sightlines and 6 foot tall we have 10 feet back into this building so it is not like i'm standing and looking into the windowsill 10 feet back the sidelines are the sidelines other thing? my home not a

developer not going to sell this property or anything like that i want to make that point. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department just to commercialism the subject property is 36 rh2 within the sgruts that has a 45 rear yard requirement that didn't allow the methodology we'll have in the code it is a bit of a strieshth or strickerer yard requirement and commissioners even though matter is submittedstricter >> owe. not per squatted we

the appellants argument the view is directly into his bedroom there is a significant height differentiateal and not persuaded how much views there would be anyways based on the amount of trees and greenery i'm not prepared to support the appellant in his appeal. >> i'm in agreement. >> a little bit different than the last case i'm in agreement. >> i'll no - >> i'm going to move it uphold the permit and deny the appeal on the basis it is code

compliant. >> thank you. >> there's a motion on the floor to up to date u you would it is code compliant. >> on that motion commissioner president lazarus commissioner vice president honda commissioner wilson is absent commissioner swig thank you. the vote is 4 to zero the permit is you would on that basis thank you commissioner president lazarus no further business this evening. >> we're .

>> how are