this is a prayer sloping deck. -- rear sloping deck. it is three levels off the ground, also supporting. the planning code has an exemption for cantilevered? parikh since we were -- cantileereevered decks. this is to minimize the impoact. -- impact. you do not have any of the impact of eight by eight posts and heavy beams and the structure that would be necessary to support a deck that is three levels high. the -- appellant made statements there is no other deck at this level in her brief. this is not true. i showed photographs in my brief that four of the eight neighboring houses have decks much larger on the second and third levels. my client also has living space. her kitchen is open to the family room which is off on this balcony. it is a balcony. it is a smaller living space over a larger space. it is almost 60% less than the allowable for planning code. that was a voluntary reduction. as soon as we heard there was an appeal filed, and i came up with a design concept to clip off one of the corners of the decks. the appellate reject

they started off with a private deck. we are not happy about the roof deck. this is located right here, in the discussion, there will be two fire walls. there is a fire wall around their deck, and directly next to our property lines. the issue is this deck primarily. there is a neighborhood pattern. the classic design is the bookend. the build date -- everyone in this building is on the corner, has one of their to property line walls said back one garage over. they put windows on it. the adjoining neighbor has windows on their property line. it is classic design. that was a design feature. these are pictures after pictures of buildings that have this feature. if you put a garage on this, the first person, everyone is going to do it. if you allow someone to build eight roof deck on this, you will be affecting all of the neighbors and establishing a precedent. why is my client care? these two windows look like they are white high up in the air. i can stand on this roof and look in today's windows. they're going to raise it up about a foot. they will be able to

these are not rooftop decks. these garages decks -- the sound goes directly into the units around them. the resulting noise can be so loud and interests of that is disruptive to the lives of the people living nearby. finally, it seems obvious enough to me, but these spaces were designed for very specific functions. air, light, and access. they were not designed as recreational areas. they should be maintained as spaces or air and light and access can be provided. thank you. >> good afternoon. i am the owner of unit 2 at 1468 francisco street. i am here today to support the residents of 1468 to express the concerns that you have already heard. for all of the reasons that have already been expressed here. i have spent most of my savings and plan to retire here. therefore, i urge you to stop the building of these decks for all the reasons you have already heard. thank you very much. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i live on the other side of the marina. i am a renter. it has the exact same situation. we are next t

-- sha'reroof decks. because of the way they are constructed, i do not believe it would infringe on privacy. i am also swayed by the fact that it is far away. it is 100 feet. it is not directly in front of any windows or anything like that. that is the nature of living in san francisco. so i would be in favor of commissioner hillis' position is -- which is to uphold the permit as it is. and also the additional fact that there has been a lot of process around this permit and we have to reach a resolution. it is unfortunate that no one attended the d.r. hearing. there was the opportunity to do that. it is unfortunate that may be the neighbors did not communicate about someone being present their but the process was available and it was not used. at this point, i do not feel we have any other choice but to uphold the permit. >> i would move to deny the appeal. >> ok. >> we have a motion to upheld this -- of polled this permit on the basis that it is code compliant. -- uphold the permit on the basis that it i

i am very much opposed to the deck on the front. it is a 330 square foot deck. on the street where there are no? on the front at all. i'm going to be right next door and i am coming late to this game but i am -- i try -- tried to do do diligence. here is the bizarre thing. i want to add when i went online to look at permits for the property, there were none until recently when i saw some had been added that said suspended because of this appeal. i feel like there is some black hole in dbi because inspector matter knew nothing about any open permits and he thought the owner was dead or ill. thank you. president hwang: is there any other public comment? seeing none, we will look into rebuttal and we will start with the appellant. >> it is six minutes. >> i am happy to hear the apartment holder is willing to work with us on the hours. i think that is great. i think that is great to have that opportunity available and i appreciate it very much. thank you. hopefully i can get to it. there was a comment made that there was some communication during this appeal set up.

. -- deck. the proposed plan shows a street facing deck that would allow out events a view directly down into my home. i have the photos to show you the proximity of are two buildings. -- of our two buildings. >> the other way. >> ok, thank you. this is 43 miramar and that picture was taken from my front window. and this is my front window from 42 miramar. it is hard to see in this picture because of the reflection in the middle window, and it is just hard to see in general, but if you look closely, you can make out my toddler's basketball hoop that he likes to play with in the window. it is easily seen into from the street. and never mind at night when the lights are on in the home. i also hold firm in my belief that the street facing deck will introduce additional street noise. the permit holder says i'm overreaching because we cannot speculate on future occupants causing public nuisance. however, this is based in reality and experience. everyone talks about community and keeping a great commu

-- two decks? it negatively impacts the neighbors who will be hearing noise and breathing barbecue smoke and tobacco smoke from parties. all the neighbors have held ground level parties in that garden spread we raise these issues at the july 2011 reapplication meeting and several times following the meeting in e-mails. i have met him only once at the precipitation meeting last year. he has responded in a hostile manner to e-mails which i sent on behalf of the neighbors. he had his lawyer send me a threatening letter in december which demanded the neighbors comments be withdrawn or he would file a lawsuit. he was demanding that we not take part in this commissions process of public participation and input. before the last hearing in may, the neighbors attempted to meet with mr. teed at supervisor farrell's office and he refused to participate. didier specific directives to the sponsor and neighbors to work on four issues. -- you gave specific directives to the sponsor and neighbors to work on four i

i do not have problems with the roof deck. maybe we should just make an amendment now and say that the roof deck is ok. i do not believe that was part of the original motion. commissioner antonini: i thought it was left open. commissioner miguel: i was open to someone who wanted to amend it to do away with it. the deck on top of the garage, and the door back to what it had been before. commissioner sugaya: that was my reasoning. it should be more accessible to all. to staff, was this a rent- controlled building at one time? >> i do not know, myself. commissioner sugaya: but you are [unintelligible ] everyone out of it? >> i am the attorney for the owner. the plans have changed. it is rent-controlled. there are tenants in it. the vacant units will bere- rented. -- be re-rented. commissioner moore: i recall that the building -- the front of the building is francisco, which would make this garage in the side yard. but we should check our old planning books. that is my recollection. president fong: any other -- vice president wu:

was the site plan sent to mary woods to ask a question about the spirit of the motion of reducing a deck, which was privacy. moving the eastern rail is a view she is concerned about which she said she would be happy with so that is ultimately in a roundabout way, i discovered because no one ever answered my question that the point of the concession of moving the railing was just to make her happy. it does not matter with the bases is. it does not matter if it makes sensor not. it is not in line with her property. i had sent the plan to ask a question and it was the wrong plan. the male was only sent to mary woods -- e-mail was only sent to mary woods. it was to the notion of, does this make sense? i never got the answer. ultimately, we did the 5 feet and turned it in and no one else was supposed to see that e-mail. everyone here is talking about the conversations they have had with mary woods. we're not privy to any of these. the lawyer that said we tried to contact him, he contacted me two days after my deadline to ask me to put trees in the drawing. that was the first i had heard of it

-- two decks? it negatively impacts the neighbors who will be hearing noise and breathing barbecue smoke and tobacco smoke from parties. all the neighbors have held ground level parties in that garden spread we raise these issues at the july 2011 reapplication meeting and several times following the meeting in e-mails. i have met him only once at the precipitation meeting last year. he has responded in a hostile manner to e-mails which i sent on behalf of the neighbors. he had his lawyer send me a threatening letter in december which demanded the neighbors comments be withdrawn or he would file a lawsuit. he was demanding

two patios and one rear yard deck are more than ample. thank you. >> i am a member of the adviser board. since the may 10 hearing, i too have been in e-mail discussions with mary woods and she has a halo tonight and she should. she has been remarkable. i was asking her how this proposed project complied with the town hall neighborhood design guidelines. she presented back and forth a discussion -- the discussion points and we have disagreed. that is why we presented a letter to the commission that we wanted the commission to take d.r. on this proposed project. we did not feel the projected comply with the guidelines. -- complied with the guidelines. back in may, it was presented to the commission that they policy of a 45% rear yard was a basis for the project compliance. the 35 foot height limit is intended -- this 45% policy is just that. it is not adopted by the commission. nor is the section in the appendix on height. the 35-foot height limit is intended to be absolute. no roof appurtenances such as parapets, elevators, or penthouses a

it reduces the size of the deck on this corner. the one thing we are adding to it, this is a little better, is to make the deck symmetrical on both sides. to balance it on the other side and still allow a place for them to have a barbecue. this protection is only 16 inches. on this elevation, it is 6 feet or less high. we are going to work that out. the bottom of the wall is going to line with the windows -- allign with the wind as. the goal is to minimize the screen. >> just a clarification, it is this dryinawing that satisfy our needs and estimations. it is the sideline, not depicted -- sight line, exactly where the permit holder has drawn the person with the view. that view is blocked by the proposed wall and stops at this. it affectively eliminates any of the view into the bedroom. that is quite satisfactory for us. on the height, we have agreed it will be 6 feet or less. less than 6 feet will give us sufficient protection. neither one of us wanted to be that high. we have an agreement it will be 6 feet. >> up to 6 feet. >> yes

building a deck at the rear of the building, it is not a deck and even to call it a balcony could be a stretch. something decorative may have been close. we issued a notice of violation, upper right got obtained -- a permit got obtained. i saw the plans and there were not of great quality. i worked very hard to understand what was existing and what was proposed. i cannot figure that out from these photographs that were submitted as part of the brave. i cannot tell if there was an existing railing from the photographs. people have stated there was but i cannot tell if these are existing or proposed conditions. i think that is where we're at here. with regard to the far wall, if you are rebuilding something in kind and it did not require a firewall, the building department will usually allow you not to have to put a fire wall in there because it existed previously without it. your rebuilding and putting it back. you're not making any bigger. if you go out and make it bigger, all bets are off. it has to be brought up to the code. if the structure was built to code, it would require a fi

front decks. i would like the following question answered. how is it that a 300 square foot rooftop street facing deck is in keeping with the spirit and character of the neighborhood. i urge you to order the removal of that deck. this would make an immediate the positive neighborhood impact and bring it into the character of the neighborhood and the remaining quality of life. i also feel the house is out of character with the other homes in the neighborhood. there are no homes in our neighborhood with three stories of building space and no homes with 40 ft. height. the proposed design is cookie cutter and does not live up to the character and charm of the neighborhood. i would like you to see pictures of homes located north and south of this location. you can take a look at the height of the existing homes and what they look like. this is 42. and then we head north. and then further north. and then back again at 42. and heading south. heading south again. and you are able to see that these homes a

>> decks are common on my street. there are houses annotated as having large third level decks and each of them has a so-called reverse for plan for the -- i ask the people who owned the homes if there decks have views into the buildings and they said no. they pointed out to me when i showed them my house that we have quite a different construction in the bay window and it would allow different view considerations. >> i would like to draw the board's attention to ms. burrell's own words which could influence that decision. together with the concessions her architect has made. there are ways to eliminate the problems we have -- that we foresee. again, lisa said she would not think of putting on a deck that would interfere with mary's views. as far as the city opposing position goes, it is almost tragic that the city would impose mechanically a ruling or suggested ruling that is contrary to the interests of both parties. ms. burrell is -- has said she is willing to consider alternatives that would eliminate problems tha

i think it is labeled as the west deck. the specific concerns from the appellant are adequately addressed. the planning commission felt they were adequately addressed. concerns about the light lost, the project provides a matching light well, maintaining reasonable access to light and air. there were concerns regarding the backyard edition and how it might lead to a loss of air flow. it might box in the rear yard. the proposal only extends about four additional feet into the yard. the property itself is a small lot. it is a key lock. -- key lot. that the lands to a less than ideal situation. concerns about the loss of property, this concern persists despite the commission's reduction. as we have talked about, at this is a privacy issue, which is very much expected and par for the course in the urban environment of san francisco. these impacts to do not rise to a significant or unusual level. this is a code-complying project. it comports to our guidelines. our staff worked tirelessly to hone their project into one that we do

the decks were not indicated on those plans? >> when i see the plans, i see those indicated. >> i think the one that was put on a2.1. >> right, on the allegations. i see it there as well at the front -- right, on the elevations. i see it there as well on the front para atwal. -- parapet wall. >> can you show us what you're talking about? >> sure. right now, we're looking at elevation three. this is the right side elevation. i believe this is the front deck right here. it what you're seeing is basically a parapet wall at the property line. perhaps that is why they do not think they see a deck. >> i think that is exactly why. >> and on the backside you can see it as well. on the left side, it is the same thing. that would be the front of the building their that my pen is pointing to. it is just a continuation of the parapet. when i look at these plans, i do see the deck. >> where is it in relation to the front property line? >> at the front of the building, it is set back 15 ft. to match the pattern of the neighborhood. the front

>> no. >> your intent is to build a deck that is 2 feet 6 inches wide? >> whatever is allowed by planning. it has been allowed if it is a 3 ft. balcony. that is what is in the appellate's last exhibit. you can see the description. extending 3 feet out from the rear wall. a balcony with firewall in exhibit o of the appellant's brief. not 2 feet 6 inches but 3 feet. >> may i hear -- why are we hearing the discrepancies hear? >> my sense that the appellant -- the permit holder may be confusing the building department with the planning department. which is an understanding -- understandable confusion, i might add. if i can perhaps throw something out there. the photo on the overhead right now -- is not clear to me if this is the condition of the de t

, crabs, beer, tomato on the deck. hooper's island, kent island, the different islands in the chesapeake bai. the chesapeake is an indian word for the great shellfish bay. it was settled by the dutch and amish, and generations, multicultural. maryland and baltimore has been synonymous with the greatest food in the world. we have the chesapeake bay. we have the eastern shore struck farms. we have western maryland cattle ranches, lamb and beach and goat and all that sort of thing but here we're focusing on the bay. >> paul, everything we see here, we scan get local -- can get locally, the corn, oyster and mighty blue crab. >> we're involved in the whole idea we want to preserve these resources that are so important to the land of pleasant living. >> yes. >> many different resource projects and programs that we take part in. >> we're going to be stalking about that. >> our objective on the deck is to showcase the different watermen. >> we will have them coming up. we're out of time, my friend. one last look at the food. i

on deck is the young catcher and rookie, wellington castillo. right now it's lahair and aceves. for the boston right-hander! >> tim: aceves finishing off lahair with the tailing fastball away. a good pitch after those off-speed pitches set him up. >> joe: now castillo. wellington has been on base twice. the time he was retired, he lined out. he lined out, singled and walked, all against lester, who is the pitcher of record for the red sox on the plus side. the breaking ball is in for a strike. stuff that aceves brings with him to the mound is the reason why he can be a starter if you need him to be a starter, a setup man or a closer. andrew bailey, the red sox traded for from oakland, hurt in spring training. it's aceves's job and that one misses down and away. a ball and a strike. castillo hit four home runs in the minor leagues this season at double-a, triple a. he's got one in the big league. waits for a 1-1. might end the ballgame. middlebrooks out at second, out at first, and the red sox win it, 4-3! a 5-4-3 double play from middlebrooks to pedroia and on to first to adrian

the reduction being gained by eliminating the space from the east side of the deck, and we will have a notice of a special restrictions attached to the same to make sure this cannot be changed in the future. reduce they were with the of the rear addition by 6 feet on each -- the width of the rear addition by six inches. on each side. >> is there a second to the motion? >> without a second -- commissioner sugaya: just to reinforce one comment of commissioner moore's. i had gotten to the tape and i paged through tons of drawings which were irrelevant. there was no as she mentioned three dimensional presentation, no massing diagrams, nothing that told me what the relationship of the building as proposed in its rear yard configuration and addition to the rear and the positioning of the roof? , relationships of all those elements to the adjacent buildings. i was going to send staff a note, but, maybe i should have. that did bother me. that said, i think that again, having looked at the video and around it back once or twice, it did seem to me that after looking at the proposed revisions t

there is no horizontal addition, but they are building a deck. when you looked at the drawing, it doesn't show well here. they didn't bother to show what they are blocking. they decided it wasn't legal. i will explain their theory they did not account for the downward sloping line. it is 10 ft. 3. you have to do a notice. you take a look at the height and here it is 37 feet and on the application is 36 feet. you can go out and measure it, higher than 10 feet. the aerial photo will never show and a pop-up. they say there is no drawing showing that this talk about was legal. this is their theory at the plan we were able to find. the only plan i can't find his the original permit. that would has not been bootlegged yen. if you look on the outside of this, if someone's not yet at a master of this would, it is the best job i have ever seen in my life. the simple answer is that this is a window was built with the building. they're building a wall in front of the bedroom window and did not bother to show it on the plan. we asked the city to come out and

then they had a deck on the back on each floor going up. it was an absolute monstrosity. we brought the city back into our backyard and said, look, this is our backyard. right now, we can see the ingleside. we are on top of the hill. from the front of cars out -- front of our house we get to the fairmont. from our roof we can see oakland. we're on top of the hill. if this happens about all we will see is this building. later on, we started

there was concern about people standing at the roof deck. because people being able to look down the rear yard. the initial suggestion was to move the railing back. we went through that and instead propose a substantial planter in that location which would have the same effect. it would keep the back from the railing, but without having this ugly piece of on serviceable roads beyond the railing. that was the compromise we made in that location. considering this as the effective rear yard for this unit, we do not montt to make it any smaller. it will not be useful. thank you. >> potential modifications, one earlier was proposed, across the windows, and then the second one here is you would be open to replacing the open rail to solid wall or something that would adjust privacy but then the trade-offs would be light. >> yes, absolutely. >> was there anything else for the two potential areas that would you -- that you would be willing today to modify? >> yes we could make those adjustments recently. >> ok, thank you. >> thank you. anything furth

will face this the open deck will face this wall.

if you lay a flagstone patio, you're not getting a permit for a deck. but if you build -- let us say you build a deck that is less than 30 inches off the ground. no permit is required. it does not go to the assessor reporter's office. between 30 and 36 inches off the ground, you need a permit. you can expand the entire size of your rear yard. if you are more than 36 inches off the ground, you have to meet the planning department open space requirements and encroachment requirements. there is a whole range. another thing would be converting an unfinished basement or adding living area, which is happening very often. people are taking the back of their grosz and turning it into their room, or an attic. that is happening in lot. you have to be assessed for that. i think that is a very green thing to do because you do not have to add building. do you have anything to say about general improvement? >> it is a big additional we are talking about attic space. when you are retrofitting for earthquakes two stories up in an edwardian, the expense involved, i thin

the big crab deck. they're working toward sustainability. i've got the vice-president of sustainability with phillips, ed rose. hey, ed, thanks for joining us. you have a great job because you're helping to serve the masses but working to sustain the population. if there's no seafood, there's no phillips. >> sustainability is about having abundant resources for future generations. so sustainability is a key word for us and a key part of our program. we're really proud that phillips is a real leader in seafood sustainability. >> you're a marine biologist. your granddaughter is learning about cleaning up the harbor. what would you say the state of the bay, the state of the harbor is? >> i think most people give the bay a report card of c minus or something like that. we have a lot of work to do. there's been a lot of progress. we're also bright. humans cause these problems. humans can solve them. we're excited about the future. >> it's a fascinating thing. we've seen that fluctuate back and forth. hurricane irene. that was a setback. now we cr

we're at phillip's crab deck. we'll talk about the big plans on the harbor front. >> we're talking about temperatures around 100 degrees in most spots. we're tracking some storms. details coming up at 5:00. >>> george zimmerman, the man charged with murdering trayvon martin was back in court today in florida. zimmerman had been in jail since his bond was revoked. today his attorney wanted the attorney to release him again but it turned into a mini trial. many people took the stand, including zimmerman's father. a recording was also played for the court. the prosecutor asked zimmerman it identify the screams on the tape. >> you feel it's your son's voice? >> yes. >> how can he be screaming if the victim's got one hand over his nose. >> the last time zimmerman had a bond hearing, he was accused of misleading the judge about his finances. the court was recessed early this afternoon after the court said he needed time to make a decision. >>> the extreme heat we're feeling isn't just affecting us in maryland. an apartm

, there were the -- there was the deck shown. the railings on the plan around the surface of this roof deck -- there was a staircase to get up to this, but there was no -- so we had a problem because the building inspection that was done for the sale of the property by the buyer indicated that, well, this cannot be permitted roof deck. in digging around a little bit more, we found that to be true. this is a two-unit building that the buyer intended to apply for a condominium conversion that some point in the near future. that was a big deal for them. what they found out in their search was they would have to remove what was there or find a way to add a second means of egress. that was a $10,000 problem. >> i think any to chip in your. things have changed about second means of redress for homes. only one exit is required for each unit. this created that. >> we go back to their units, my friend rented out, but has never complained about it too many people. what kind of problem could my friend get in this kind of situation? >> [inau

he will put a deck and someone will look into a bedroom window. it is outrageous. >> we can hear from the permit older now. -- holder now. >> of the conrad family owned the property for 55 years. brought it from the descendants of golden gate park. she lived in this house all this time and there was a fire two years ago that caused substantial damage to the house. she had to move out and at that time, throughout her 55 years, she wanted a ride. the work that was proposed, finally, after negotiating with the insurance company, she was able to afford a rod. we kept the permit that would have accommodated the garrote as a separate permit, reduced it to the minimum amount of work necessary to accomplish the task after all the foundations are in in the interior work was completed. 95% of the project was repairing the fire damage, upgrading the house because of the extent of the fire damage which included all the foundations and the entire house remodeled might as the cutting of the garages. this permit which the neighbor has persistently requested a d

that's been hinted at is rounding of corners but i don't know if that will really -- maybe on the deck itself but don't know how much we're going to gain from that. if that makes project sponsor, d.r. request happier perhaps rounded corners on the edge of the deck railings might be helpful, i don't know. might make it a little less -- look a little less like it's a square out there. that might be something i'm going to suggest. >> right f we put the trees in then, it will be from view as well. and then i would just like to say, my understanding of what i was supposed to present here was i thought i just had tookt on the motions and that the -- you made a comment about the details needed to be seen in drawing form, i did not know that meant you wanted a 3d model. i can do that. it just wasn't something i realized was proposed. >> thank you. i appreciate it. those would be suggestions either tonight or if we can't get approval from the commission tonight, then if we do have to hear it again, i don't really see any way that you're not going to be able to have that extension because the un

>>shepard: what happens when they get it on flight deck there? >>reporter: construction will be starting right away. we will see the construction of the pavilion. it will look like a tennis bubble, a temporary climate-controlled pavilion. construction and lighting crews will work around-the-clock to prepare the exhibits and display for the public. people will be able to walk under it, around it and a viewing platform at the tip of the necessary so people can get a closer look. it survives a minor fender bender en route, the wing was slightly damaged. it has been repaired and it will not hinder on when the public will get to see it july 19th, open to the public. >>shepard: sounds great, laura, good to see you. although it never flew in space the enterprise was america's first space shuttle and nasa used it for test flights in the 1970's and was originally set to be named "constitution," but star trek fans convinced president ford to call it "enterprise," after the famous starship. and now, the aviation cure rater at the museum, live on scene, you