president goh: is the room a bedroom? >> yes. president goh: is it a bedrrooom in your unit? >> yes. there are three of us, i'm on the top floor. president goh: is it a separate unit from the rest of the building? >> the top floor is a separate unit. the outside downstairs is communal. top and bottom. commissioner hwang: the property line window is not part of your unit? it is? thank you. president goh: you have another minute if you want to use it. is there a need for a translator? we can expand your time to allow for that. just -- could you approach? commissioner hwang: if you want to speak, your daughter can translate for you. we will allow time for the translation. >> i own the building, but [ speaking foreign language]. commissioner garcia: we understood. >> [unintelligible]

president goh: no, please. commissioner fung: part of the issue here is that people got used to their rear yard and privacy for all the years they have lived there. the problem is blending in those concerns with what is basically a" compliant solution -- basically a code compliant solution. if people are on the deck, there is bound to be some level of noise or discussions, or kids playing and stuff. i think that is probably of concern to the appellants in seeing a new situation. we would want both neighbors to find some sort of solution they both can accept. it does not appear it is going to happen very quickly. i would make the suggestion -- if they cannot block out the sound, they can block out the site. they both look to the north. yes, there is a possibility at certain times of the year, the sun as it sets will go a little beyond direct west and they will get a little bit of sun for a very short time in the day. if it was purely a like issue, we would probably be looking at -- light issue, would be looking

president goh: what school is that? thank you. and you mentioned that the building into the rear yard was off the table. was that on the table at some point? >> it was my understanding that was a matter of discussion. the planning commission was considering the third story addition independent of a rear addition. i do not believe plans were ever drawn up for a rear addition, although i could be corrected. president goh: thank you. >> the staff asked the sponsor to drop plans for putting up two stories, i believe, into the rear yard, and doing a much smaller top floor. the client said that is not what the neighbors want. we are here to work with the neighbors. president goh: thank you. comments, commissioners? commissioner fung: i will start. having worked with the planning department and planning commission for 30-odd years, i do not think they are anti- family. and to a certain degree, some of their statements i would agree with. i would agree that the overall profile as proposed by the appellant could be fit in, even with the mo

president goh: mr frye? i think you said that the appellant's attorney was in fault in the revised proposal but that the appellants themselves or not? >> that is correct. president goh: okay, thank you. >> we will hear from the appellants now. >> my name is richard zillman, the applicant. we are appealing the decision by the starke preservation commission. they took a very technical view of our plans. if we accept that the hpc is correct in both instances, which a doorway with appeals. the board of appeals job is to consider all goals, encouraging property owners to maintain their properties, and recognizing community support. the project should be evaluated not as to the effect on the carriage house but on the effect of the overall site itself, since the sot must be removed for repair work. it is considered an unavoidable, defacto demolition. we have decades of experience renovating san francisco victorian apartments. in showing our places, if we have heard it once, we have heard it a thousand times, light

president goh: why don't we have plans? says per application and plans, but we don't have the plans. >> my understanding is one set remains with microfilm at ddi and the other remains with the applicant. they were not provided to us and not available to our staff. i asked miss huang about her brief. she said she was involved -- advised by her architect to show up. but it is the board's choice. if you think you need plans, you can continue. president goh: thank you. >> anything to add? >> tony greco, department of building inspection. this was an over-the-counter review. it went through all the proper approvals. the valuation, etc. this was straightforward. we're trying to issue more permits over-the-counter. >> thank you. is there any public comment? seeing none, we will move into rebuttal. you have three minutes. >> first of all, i want to clarify the things that happened. the property was showed about early june. they sent us a letter about the permit, the building. they sent us the letter on the building from the departm

president goh: ok. >> [unintelligible] president goh: ok. thank you. i'm going to -- commissioner garcia: miss li? commissioner fung: i asked the appellant whether they had done any form of approaching community boards where neighbors can discuss things and see if they can find some common basis to have a neighborly relationship. would that be of interest to you? to see if there is an ability to reduce complaints and lived to get there? -- and live together? perhaps your daughter can translate that. >> no. nobody called me. commissioner fung: would you consider that? volunteers service that in the city. >> it's a good idea, but let them come to me and let me do the stairway. commissioner fung: the stairway is the issue before us. the community boards thing is voluntary by the parties themselves. >> i think that for today's case, we would like to let us do the stairway thing and in the future, she would like to go to the -- commissioner fung: community boards. ok. thank you. president goh: i was going to give you another minute if you have any for one -

commissioner goh: i have a question. can you talk about a month rent facilities on the first floor unit and whether the denkinger or whenever they are sitting on is part of the nov? -- whether the deck or whenever they are sitting on is part of that? >> we are going to repair in the end, rather than the part of it covered the garbage and try to hide something from him. i have no idea. commissioner goh: not part of the now. no -- v. -- not part of the nov. >> i do not know. the inspector did not approve the workmanship. commissioner goh: thank you. commissioner fung: you of other properties here, br mr.itton? -- here, mr. britton? >> that is not to be discussed here. >> anything else, mr.duffy -- anything else for mr. duffy? are you looking for the nov? it would be in the pellets -- the appellants' breeds. commissioner goh: my question is whether the nov affects this? >> i do not see it noted, but it is typical but the contractor should check the whole deck for any signs and take care of it all at once. it should get a fu

president goh: is there a motion? vice president garcia: i would move this board overturn the denial of the application for a medallion, based on grounds that -- go ahead. >> we are overturning the decision. given the various comments by the commissioners, the unique situation of this case vice president garcia: with findings to be written at a later date. >> we have a motion from the vice president to overrule the denial, at issue this medallion, with the adoption of findings at a later time. on that motion -- commissioner fung: aye. president goh: aye. commissioner peterson: aye. aye. -- commissioner hwang: aye. >> the appeal is granted and the denial is overruled. adoption of findings will be scheduled later on. president goh: we are going commissioner fung: you know what works. >> welcome back to the august 2011 board of appeals. we are: item eight. golden valley neighborhood association, shirley jacobs, jeffrey lee, and megan chechile protesting the issuance of a permit to alter a building, a revision to exterior

president goh: we are going to president goh: we are going to take a short break.

on the motion, president goh. president goh: it was revision one on this date? >> revised plans dated august 16. president goh: aye. vice president garcia: aye. commissioner peterson: aye. >> this is upheld with revised plans. >> thank you. >> item 6. appeal no. 11-021. subject property is that 1649 haight street. replace billboard involuntarily removed without owner authorization. billboard to replaced -- be replaced exactly in kind. work is at exterior only. work is not associated with any commercial space. we will start with the appellant. who has seven minutes. >> if we could stop one second. i am on behalf o thof the appellants here. they are the owners behind front properties. cdf did file a brief and in my opinion they are trying to read litigate things this board decided 10 years ago -- relitigate things this board decided to end years ago -- 10 years ago. this if for your use. if it becomes an issue, it is not in my presentation but given the way the process is before this board, i cannot respond. usually i file a brief and there is a response. i do not

president goh: ok. thank you. >> thank you. we can hear from the appellants now. >> i am still a little bit nervous, but i am getting better at this. i am representing golden gate valley. i also live across the street from the brickyard. we are here to request this board rescinded the permit for a second store deck with adjoining open doors. although this board requested that the applicant themselves investigate the noise impact caused by their project and work with us to find technical solutions to meet our reasonable concerns, that unfortunately did not happen. instead, they came up with a custom some report, in our opinion, taken in a very minute amount of time to support their position that there is no problem. the first time we were provided any information, even though we contacted them right after the appeal hearing and also at the union street association meeting, was when they filed their brief to this board on july 28. after they filed that brief, they've been contacted us and said come on over and meet with our sound

president goh: aye. cthe appeal is granted and the penalty is reduced to five times the regular. >> thank you. we will move on to item 5. appeal no. 11-084. the subject property is at 536 golden gate ave. appealing the imposition of penalty on june 1, 2011. plumbing work done without a permit. application pp 2011/06/01/556. we will start with the appellant. >> the evening. -- good evening. i am leaving the space unoccupied. upon taking possession of the space last year, we did minor remodeling including painting, a changing lighting fixtures and so on. included in the scope of the work was limited amount of plumbing work that needed to be changed out. we repositioned a water heater and subsequently had to rework some gas lines and while we were in the basement we noticed a couple of the pipes were arrested. pipes that connected to our bathroom -- to the toilet and such. i enlisted the help of some family members that have some handyman experience. i did not feel the need to get a licensed plumber. i want