they need to share in the original three minutes by the rehearing requestor. they are not outside part -- parties for public comment circumstances. president hwang: are there non-affiliated parties who wish to speak? >> how many workers are here? >> thank you. assuming there are no other members of the public who would like to speak. >> i have a few questions of inspector hong. one of the points raised by the requestor's attorney that was not in any paper submission relates to the abatement hearing and the ability or the failure of the requestor to bring documents that would have shot that he had corrected those deficiencies -- sean that he had corrected those deficiencies. with that -- shown that he had corrected these deficiencies. would that have made a difference? >> we have seen these pictures before and they can be cleaned up and we have witnessed that and that is why we continued to work for the last three years. it is the custom return and cycle that does not end. it was not about showing as a piece of paper. president hwang: -- -- showing us a piece o

requestor. second d.r. requestor. >> i am judy kaiser, 2806 union street which is perpendicular and it was the yellow building that was outlined by mr. williams. good afternoon, commissioners, and commission director. thank you for your time. as you may recall, our d.r. is regarding the reduction in size and the position of a roof deck at 273537 baker. i am here to report on the progress. working with the city planner ms mary woods and in the spirit of compromise, we have come to an agreement with the sponsor. we thank ms. woods for her professionalism and dedication as an intermediary. if there have been misunderstandings in the past and disagreement -- this agreement will likely have been impossible without her. as per pages a3 and a7, of the revision, submitted by the sponsor, we agreed to a reduction of 5 feet from the eastern boundary of the roof deck, reducing the square-foot it to better line up with the other -- square footage to better line up with the other decks in the area. the total area of the

requestor has agreed essentially to the revision of -- mr. williams, maybe i could ask you for some comments. sounded like you had said that if the bedroom remained on the ground floor where it is designed to be, you had talked about perhaps some rounding of the corners. what sort of shrinkage would make you more comfortable or revisions to the plan without reconfiguring the entire floor plan? you hinted it would be ok with some kind of changes to make it less intrusive. >> you heard from us and i submitted a brief. i think this is a faux merger that is being done. i do not think it is right to make such a tiny and that -- unit and have this huge, large, luxurious unit. i think it is a way to get around the code. we put this out there a long time ago. that jagged edge along the yard is going to be difficult to look at. we talked about trees. if there were sculpted in, set in, i do not begin should be there all. i was looking for something creative from the point of view of hiding it, digging it down, there is a slope there, you could dig down

dr requestor? you have a two-minute rebuttal if you choose. >> where to start. i guess -- one issue is with a 42-inch opening rally. anyone can step over that. there is going to be an additional flight added on to the structure. it is going to st. -- go straight up to our property line. anyone can cross that. regarding the rear deck, this is designated as the rear yard. it is 12 feet the. section 136 clearly says -- including naina deck. we did have agreements, but they were never able to be enforced. we never reached a final agreement. even though -- i thought it was going to all worked out. it all fell apart when we could not find a way to enforce our agreement. that is all i can say. >> project sponsor, you have a two-minute rebuttal, if you choose. >> there is not much to say. we did have the disagreement. it was already written by the neighbor, and provided to us. we agreed to everything on it. however, it changed because of the height of the wall.

requestors, you each have two minute rebuttals. >> i am here on behalf of one of the neighbors. not much to rebut. the project sponsors seem to say that they have complied and the memo and produce as they have not. the recommendation from the planner is set out there. you have heard from the neighbors. you have heard from the direct neighbors as well as the surrounding neighbors, you have a petition with 24 immediate neighbors and you heard from the neighborhood association. this violates the guidelines. if we're not going to reduce it to land with the existing buildings which i think is the proper thing to do. if you are going to respect and enforce the design guidelines, if you're not going to do that, what's shaping. let's move it off of that so we do not have this wall, this towering wall on this tiny backyard that the family has had for the last few years. it would ease those corners away. and the plants and trees. the views are blocked of that large new extension in the rear yard. again, we urge you to use the notices special restrictions to make sure these items are enfor

. -- requestor, you have five minutes. >> ok. thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak on behalf of the owners of our building and the renters as well. i live at 1468 francisco street. it is a four units right next to 49 defense discuss street. -- 1490 francisco street. i have lived in the marina for 24 years. some more pictures. what you can seek is these are pretty much all of the bedroom windows. this is my bedroom window. it is a glass. it could easily be broken into. i am very concerned about security issues. these other windows have line of sight directly to the? deck. all of our bedrooms and kitchen windows have access to that deck as well. the open bedroom windows are the only open -- source of light and air from those units. you can see my security concern with anybody ought not -- on that deck. it also affects five other unitst. he deck is going there. they will be affected the same way. they have direct line of sight, privacy issues. this is also a very narrow at neuss tunnel. it is very narrow and everything t

requestor is comfortable with it. and the planning commission by a vote is comfortable with it. we would respectfully suggest that you deny this appeal and uphold the permit as is. gregg's mr. snyder, -- >> mr. snyder, the notice of proposal that went out in july, what response did you get to that? >> i can look on the docket. we did not get any requests for discretionary review. as two inquiries or statements of support or opposition, -- as to inquiries or statements of support our position, -- >> [unintelligible] >> the discretionary review hearing on the eighth of december of last year this that there were no comments either in support of or opposition to the project at that time. >> up to that point in time. >> my question is one of the statements made by the project sponsor's council -- counsel, was that the third floor? would it have been in planning? could it have been in code if there were no livable deck in that space, or would that have been out of compliance? correct if i understand you correctly -- >> rather than a deck in the living space, would that have been permi

process because the der requestor had filed the d.r. but not withdrawn it. and the project had gone through so much change since they filed. i guess there d.r. was no longer relevant. i remember my conversations with the planner and he was -- he said there would not withdraw the d.r.. so they basically a kind of stopped in the middle of the process. if they still have issues, maybe they did not understand the process and i do not know what the solution is to that. san francisco seems to hold out its hand to people and try to help people. i think there are resources, i do not know what to say. regarding issues that some of the neighbors have raised about the floor plans and it looks like someone will change it into an illegal configuration in the future, that is an illegal configuration. if they attempt to do that, they apart will cite them and the neighbors will log an anonymous complaint and the building in the department will inspect and it will issue an [unintelligible] just because someone does not break the law in the future does not mean we have to pre

vice president fung: i have a question for counsel for the rehearing requestor. you or whoever from your side. one of the largest issues here is whether your client after multiple opportunities is going to be able to now toe the line, so to speak, with respect to something that is not rocket science. >> i understand that. i do believe at every hearing a plan will be in place. it is already in place to address those issues but part of the problem and again, it is a fairness issue. we're not judging the rehearing. what the department has come in and said is there is a systemic problem and i believe they said to the president's question, it is not a question if they did every inspection -- a re- inspection, the notice said there were three issues here. only in english. you have an abatement hearing because we have a notice of violation. they did not say this is a notice of a historical problem and you have not cleared this. i know that this is the department's position. their position does not conform with the notice the issued. the notice they issued, there is an i

requestor. >> thank you, commissioners. steve williams. as a reminder, i recommend -- represent the family who lives in the

requestor. >> move to continue. >> second. brecht's same house, -- >> same house, call? >> do we need public comment? >> yes, you do. sorry. gregg's any public comment? -- >> any public comment? seeing none, will continue. >> same house, same call. >> got it. item number d, england, james, a goldstar bar, 1520 california, place of entertainment permit. >> this has a whole different back story that is not really important other than to tell you that this was an application posted and then a c requirements -- a cu requirement was unearthed. at this time, the applicant has been notified that the cu requirement has been in place. this is also an application for a billiard establishment. we are asking the commission to continue the place of entertainment permit to the call of the chair. it will reappear if the applicant does see you for entertainment. and you will see the billiard parlors -- parlor come back to you at the next meeting in two weeks. >> any public comment? seeing none, do we have a motion to call the chair? >> moved. >> second. >> same house, same call? >> yes.