mr. sider? >> thank you for the opportunity to respond. first, just to reply to mr. gladstone's good-natured remarks about what the planning code does and does not say, i would quickly mention that planning codes section 311, subsection c, subsection one does require compliance with residential design guidelines, which mandates the 15-foot setback. there it is. secondly, with respect to square footage, possibly and misstated something. i am not sure. the point of which to communicate is that the square footage of the home as established by criteria lengths would be unaffected by the reconfiguration to address at the commission's concerns. let me back a second, if i could. one of the things that struck me during public comment was the tone of the commons. -- comments. it is refreshing to hear from a group of people that are enlightened about the character of their neighborhood and change to their neighborhood, the maturation of their neighborhood. i cannot begin to articulate how unusual that is. it is to be cherished. with that in mind, i need to address some of the

. >> mr. sider? this appeal concerns a permit that was an over-the-counter approval by the planning department and the building department as well. it is not subject, a deck of this type, nor the interior improvements -- they are not subject to neighborhood notice. the view issues, property value concerns, and loss of privacy -- only the loss of privacy is contemplated by department policies, and then only in an adjunct capacity. the proposal is not extraordinary or unusual. the loss of privacy is something typical in a dense urban environment like san francisco. the discussions just now by the project sponsor with respect to privacy screens i think are intriguing. beyond that, i would reiterate there is nothing about this proposal that strikes us as extraordinary or unusual. the permit is right. in absence of compromise by the parties involved in measures that could be taken for mutual benefit, such as a privacy screen, we would urge you to uphold the approval of this permit application. commissione

mr. sider, would we expect to see drawings in a situation like this with a second story deck? >> i think there are two issues here. the first is the plants that were reviewed and approved when the permit itself was approved. there certainly were plans included. our staff would not have issued an approval without plans. the second issue and the more critical one tonight is the presence of those plans at this hearing. based on my understanding of your procedures and policies, it is pretty unusual for an appellant to not provide those or not look to provide those. i cannot offer any more insight. commissioner fung: i think it is more the permit holder would provide it to us. >> i stand corrected. president goh: thank you. >> no further questions? the matter is submitted. commissioner fung: we want to start? -- do you want to start? 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