d-r requestor's deck. with the project's revisions and the withdrawal of the southern neighbor's d-r request, the rdt did not find exceptional or extraordinary circumstances with the remaining d-r requestor's concerns. particularly with regard to light and air access, privacy impacts, neighborhood character, and building scale in relation to the mid-block open area. the rdt noted the following. that light and air access and the building scale in relation to the mid-block open area are addressed by the project's rear addition stepping down toward the rear yard. the rear addition would not extend to an exceptional depth when compared to the depths of both adjacent buildings. with regard to privacy the project is considered to be within the privacy tolerances to be expected when living in a dense urban environment such as san francisco and within the zoning district which allows full lot width development and requires no side yards. with regard to neighborhood character and context, the addition would not be

are there any speakers in support of the d-r requestor? okay, seeing none, project sponsor, your team has five minutes. >>> thank you, commissioners. this is john kelp a her with rubin junius and rose on behalf of the project sponsors, karen and kevin cramer. the project before you proposes a substantial upgrade for the project sponsor's growing family. i'd like to have karen come up and speak to the goals of their project. >>> my name is karen [speaker not understood], i'm the homeowner. our goal is to design a four for i house that [speaker not understood] multi-generational living for 7 people. unfortunately we are the sandwiched generation. we have two boys which hopefully are in bed right now, 5 and 7 and plans along the way with kevin's parents. the first quarter is kevin's parents own private living air i can't tellv we decided not to put them on the first floor because the d-r requestors doberman pincher often barks in the garage in the backyard and we wanted a quiet space for them. 126 18th avenue was a probate sale that is not st

negative impacts to the d-r requestor's light, air, and privacy. the project is not consistent with the neighborhood context and the project's form and proportion are not cot pat i believe with surrounding houses. the residential design team reviewed the project with regard to both d-r requests and requested revisions to the project to specifically address light, air, and privacy concerns raised by both d-r requestors. along the south property line the project was revised to have side setbacks to the first and second stories resulting in the withdrawal of the southern neighbor's d-r request. along the north property line, the project was revised to include a fire rated roof assembly rather than a tall parapet in the setback of deck railing from the three feet shared property line thus providing separation between the projects and the d-r requestor's decks and a reduction in height of the one-story rear addition that would extend beyond the d-r requestor's deck. with the project's revisions and the withdrawal of the southern neighbor's d-r request,

one is the issue that the dr requestor made. one of the major ones for me is east privacy issue. the windows and glass door faced my bedroom, my rear yard and the cottage. the second reason is the fact that the sponsor made no effort to engage with myself and other neighbors in responding to our concerns. i believe that if she did engage in the dialogue, this dr would have been avoided. there's simple solutions that meet requirements and our concerns, and i would like to demonstrate the few. so sponsors request is family room, two bedrooms and one of the master bedroom integrating existing house with addition and a roof turf. our issues with how proposed design meets this requirements are there's no west setback, east privacy directly overlooking my bedroom and my backyard and the cottage, added volume to the building with two added stairs, one interior, one exterior and this is treated as if this is a multi unit building and a level three roof turf. all of them add to both the massive and the issues the setbacks and privacy. ultimate ideas that respond to sponsors requirements a

we will start with the requestors. who would like to speak on behalf of the requesters, you have three minutes. >> i need to make a disclosure, commissioners, that quite a few years ago miss delaney was hired by /phao*eugs for a project in emeryville. >> and i thank you. >> i'm here, christopher delaney -- i own the building at 600 illinois. the reason that we are here is we are asking for the board to take jurisdiction of the permits. we did miss the deadline due to improper posting and failure to comply with section 806b3b, specifically stating that notice will be provided to the surrounding neighbors and the department shall post the notice on the affected tree. the two trees we are here to discuss and wish for a jurisdictional of this permit is the trees are in illinois. we have no trouble with the trees on third. that's correct. the trees were posted and the affected trees were posted correctly on third. the trees on illinois, which are historic value, we believe, due to their size, due to the girth of the tree an

ryan paterson for the dr requestor. as you've heard, this is basically a good project with a few rough edges that needs refinement. we're completely in support of the accessibility parts of this project adding an elevator, but apart of the project that has nothing to do with accessibility and lots of privacy for the neighbors. we ask that you do address. this is the -- the diagram i'm showing, they're the four decks that's apart of this project. you have a deck here, here, and a deck here, and a deck here. some are handicap accessible, this one here. the primary deck we're concerned with is this roof top party deck here. it is quite large. this is 225 square feet. in total you have roughly 1,100 square feet of deck in this project which we believe is unnecessary and has a serious impact on the privacy of the neighbors. these decks including this elevated illegal deck here and mr. vascuwich can speak about this. it looks down into our clients property and into the rear cottage. we ask that this deck be required to be leg

so in summary, the requestor has failed to prove that the addition is considered extraordinary and circumstances. i have acted in good faith and i respectfully ask that the commission takes the planning recommendation and approve the plan and deny the dr. >> the public hearing portion is closed. >> commissioner moore. >> i would like to give my comments to the building and ask mr. washington a couple of questions. mr. washington, my understanding is that single family residential over three stories does not require a secondary means of [inaudible] in the forms of stairs as we see on the plan. i want to restrict my comments to discussing the stairs which are in the rear of the building and added massiveness, which i think indeed makes it difficult to look at the expansion as the reason of expansion. i want to look at the buildings. if there is a need for the stair, it can be a circular staring because from the fire department's point of view, the stair that is currently shown is not a requirement. am i correct for saying that? >> i don't know the answer because i am not a building inspector, but

jurisdiction is granted and these requestors now have a five day appeal permit to appeal this permit, which end this coming monday. thank you. >> thank you. item number five was dismissed, we now move on to item number six. this is for the property at 4848 17th street. we'll start with the appellants, who have seven minutes. >> good evening board. thank you for hearing our appeal. my name is kevin rudich and i live at 4846 17th street. i'm accompanied by michael cruise who lives there with me as well, and steve and diane, who live at 4848 17th street. we are asking the board to deny at&t to be able to build their tier three wireless facility on a pole that is right in front of both of our houses. just to give you a brief background, this is in coal valley. we moved to coal valley for particular reasons. it's a nice residential neighborhood, treelined, lots of light and air and we've been there for ten years. i believe steve and diane have been there for 30 years and have had no issues until this particular point. so again, we'd ask the board not to grant at&t their application for the

the dc circuit said the government's position would create a catch-22 situation, leaving requestors in limbo for months or years. that resulted in what congress or the law envisioned. i'm glad the court got this one right. but it's a shame that it even had to consider the question. what message does the justice department argument send to other agencies? meaning the argument in that case. i fear this, do as i say, not as i do, approach, embot bold -- emboldens the agencies to craft maneuvers that -- the justice department was right there to help them in the court. given the justice department's leadership role with respect to foia, that's disappointing if not downright alarming considering what the purposes of foia is all about. if justice makes this kind of argument, why shumann be shocked about the lack of transparency claims against the government? as a senator i have had my open challenges in obtaining information, not only from this administration but a lot of administrations since i've been in the senate, and again, only hold this administration to a higher standard because of th