height limit of 28 feet which precluded a third story. they would rather have people go down and expand inward rather than go aboard. the question about that here, it is a little bit different, in my opinion. first is westwood in mira loma. there is no doubt that on this street, the context is quite consistent in terms of two stories. the reason why the deck comes up is because of the third floor and therefore, the mandated setback that establishes a lesser impact of the third floor upon the streetscape. and adjacent neighbors. that then creates a situation which puts it right at the edge for me in terms of its ability to fit in within the context. it is not overly done and yet it is not real close to what is there. on a personal note, the reason i bring up the thing about the deck is it is not something i find very suitable, especially in a less dense area, where the yards are larger, there? in the rear. i am not enamored with roof? in general, and with roof decks in gener
able to get approved a design guidelines within their areas that was applicable to all buildings. like westwood park, it had a height limit of 28 feet which precluded a third story. they would rather have people go down and expand inward rather than go aboard. the question about that here, it is a little bit different, in my opinion. first is westwood in mira loma. there is no doubt that on this street, the context is quite consistent in terms of two stories. the reason why the deck comes up is because of the third floor and therefore, the mandated setback that establishes a lesser impact of the third floor upon the streetscape. and adjacent neighbors. that then creates a situation which puts it right at the edge for me in terms of its ability to fit in within the context. it is not overly done and yet it is not real close to what is there. on a personal note, the reason i bring up the thing about the deck is it is not something i find very suitable, especially in a less dens
somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 square feet. what swings me in terms of my final determination here is the fact that this site has had so much process and i think that was part of the problem. the process that occurred before was to maximize and therefore createed a situation where the numbers neighbors who were there previously versus those who were there tonight wound up probably with a very protracted and therefore difficult process in dealing with the previous developers. it [unintelligible] this particular proposal. given that level of process, given the fact that nobody responded to the notice, to make, that was very important and was telling. i am prepared to support this permit, but i would like to see a reduction of the usable roof deck in the front. i have been undecided about how i came out on this case until i heard commissioner fung speak on this case. i have seen this type of roof? sha reroof decks. because of the way they are constructed, i do not be
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 prevent them from doing stuff that is legal today. there are regulations regarding sound and nuisance and i sympathize with the appellant. we have all experienced neighbors that are disrespectful and have parties and keep this up at night. nobody likes that. but there are laws on the books to address that. there is a process for dual dealing with that. the fact that someone could ter