prior to issuance of the permit that the concrete needed to be fixed in front of the house. this is a picture of a concrete that was never fixed. and this shows the largest tree in the back yard which is well over 12 inches which is right next to that alley so it should be covered under the street tree ordinance. it will make a great difference in the neighborhood. we're cutting down the back yard. we're taking a two bedroom one bath house and turning it into a five bedroom four bath house. they're trying to disguise that it's going to be multiple families by saying that they have two laundries in the house. there's going to be a laundry upstairs and another one downstairs. i say that downstairs one, which on the original plans which i received, was called a wet bar is actually going to turn into a kitchen and be another unit. thank you. >> president honda: thank you, sir. good evening and welcome. >> i'm paula davis debella. i'm at the same address of stanley. i wanted to bring up the fact that two years ago we were given plans by the owner or his agent. we had a neighbor give several comments and we never heard anything further. until recently, which is about two years later, when we were made aware that a permit had been issued to build a much larger building. however, this time there was no effort to provide plans or to meet with neighbors to discuss plans or neighbors concerns. and i guess that was under the, you know, vetting plans to speed upper mites through originally that's what that was meant for. so we accepted it. we knew there would be a building eventually or they would try to have a building eventually. then we just didn't hear anything. when we finally did hear something, the plans were completely changed which i think my husband eluded to. again, there was no plan or notice to the neighbors. well, there was some notice, i think. but there were no plans or no discussion. so we feel this type of megaconstruction, which is consistent -- which is inconsistent with the other houses, takes away space between neighbor, yards for kids to play in, also privacy between neighbors because it's going to look right down -- we have a rental cottage which is very close to where they plan to build. that's going to be impacted. they'll have windows that can look down into our cottage in the back that we rent out and actually over to our own house which we have a tiny yard in between the cottage. the cottage is the original house in the 1800s. it was built in the 1880s, i think. we feel it's very inconsistent with the neighborhood. it takes away space and also privacy between neighbors and the proximity and height of the proposed structure will also interfere with sunlight to the cottage because the kos taj is only one story high. and finally, we hope that the neighborhood is not destined to just become megamultiunit buildings. it just seems, like in our neighborhood, if one big building goes up and the building is completely changed and there are condos, we aoefr had this happen on one side of us where it was three apartments and urned into five condos and we didn't even hear about the change to that building. but, we're just afraid this will be an outliar type building that it will become the normal for the neighborhood. that's what we don't want to happen. thank you. >> president honda: thank you. >> we can hear from the permit holder. >> president honda: good evening and welcome. >> thank you. good evening. my name is zhou xin wei. i am the owner of 2616 24th avenue. i submit application to do the addition back in 2015, like march. i did a site meeting during that time. i did submit the notification later. i did that. and then so there's no one protesting or complaining about my plan, therefore, i waited almost two years, little over two years for the planning department to approve the plan. and then so i just got the -- well, i never received like the brief later from mr. debella, so i didn't know what was their concern. but based on the first appeal they filed, i think i'm now making the house into multiunit condo which is not allowed. then i just -- the condition of the house right now is inhabitable. i would just like to remodel and move in with my family. then mrs. paula debella concern. her cottage on her back yard, actually her lot is sitting a story higher than my lot. basically even her cottage single level, but still it's same high as my second story height. so after the addition, the property line, her property line to her cottage to my new addition, there's still about 42 feet of distance. and then regarding the tree or like a fence because those are existing things that i have no control over right now because i don't live there. not that i don't want to make house better or make neighborhood better. then therefore i guess i have no more to say. thank you. >> commissioner lazarus: in the material you submitted you said i am not adding four new bedroom, existing four bedrooms and two baths. i'm only adding one bedroom. but this new two bedrooms, family room and two bathrooms, two new master bedrooms and master bathrooms second floor. so which is it? >> regarding that. existing house has two, i would say like illegally has two bedrooms. then one bathroom up stairs. then the basement, like the first floor has two bedroom and then also a bathroom. i doesn't show on the tax record. basically existing house has two bathroom, two bedroom, kitchen, living room, dining room and like a small family room downstairs. so i'm not taking away the garage. garage still stays. so i have very long drive way. like other neighbors how they park. basically, i'm not taking up like the street for parking space. they're concerned about -- >> commissioner lazarus: that wasn't my question. i'm not interested in how many bedrooms are there now. the permit says you're adding four bedrooms. are you adding four bedrooms? >> i guess so. because the basement existing has two bedroom already. >> commissioner lazarus: we'll come back to it. thank you. >> president honda: thank you. >> batter up. shed some light on this. good evening. corey teague planning tkep staff. yes, the building permit that's before you tonight was first filed in march of 2015 for a rear addition to the existing two story single family home and interior remodel. i think the point you made before is that legally the existing building has two bedrooms but there are two other rooms on the ground floor that may not be legal bedrooms. maybe have operated as defacto bedrooms in the past. depending on which number you use. probably adds they're adding four bedrooms. that's obviously the number of legal bedrooms they're adding. this project was reviewed by our staff. it did go out for a neighborhood notification in april and may of 2017. no requests for discretionary review was filed during that period. the planning department found the project to be code compliant consistent with the residential design guidelines and approved the permit in may of 2017. the issue about the potential use as mull. units or rentals or group housing is an issue that's been before you before. it's not an uncommon issue that we see. as we've discussed before, this is an issue of design versus use. it's a fact that as proposed the house would have five bedrooms. there's nothing in the planning code that equates the number of bedrooms or bathrooms to the number of units. you can have large single family homes. you can have small single family homes. we can deny a permit because the sponsor may illegally use the legally, you know, developed scope of work in a way that's not consistent with the planning code. what we do though is our planners do look for these situations where large numbers of bedrooms are being added and to try to make sure that the interior is not designed in a way that compartmentalized or other ways where it seems highly likely that it could be broken up and used by group housing which would be more than five unrelated persons or for illegal units. as you know, we have our rooms down bulletin, it does put restrictions on what kind of amenities and connection is required. the ground floor in this project does meet those. there was reference that the ground floor originally had a wet bar proposed and then didn't. that was probably a direct result of that building measure bulletin which this type of project would not allow a full bath and a wet bar on the ground floor. that would make sense. i did want to make you aware that planners are on the lookout for this issue but, again, we can deny a permit that's otherwise completely code compliant because there's the potential for the future owner to use that legal scope of work in an unpermitted way. i'm available for any comments. >> president honda: is this rh-1 or 2? >> this is rh-1. maximum number that should be on the site is one unit unless you could add one 80u. >> president honda: could you explain -- i know this is located d-7. >> adu program is city wide. it's two programs. single family homes have two options. generally in this situation single family home could add one additional adu. it would essentially have to be within the same building envelope that exists to add that adu. so part of this permit could have been to come in and add an adu on the ground floor. that's not what they're proposing to do. if they want to do that in the future an use some portion of the addition that's being proposed, they'd have to wait until three hours after that was constructed to do that. there is potential for a second unit there as an adu in the future. >> they could have proposed it as an adu initially. >> they could have. they would have been able to come in with the existing building today. >> president honda: okay. thank you. >> inspector duffy? >> joe duffy, dbi. it was a form 3 permit that was taken in for review. it looks to be meeting the intention of the building code. i see that they do have a total of five bedrooms and five bathrooms when it's all done. i would also warn, just warn them that if they start using it for some other use rather than it's intended, used as a single family dwelling, that dbi could be involved in the enforcement of that as well through our housing inspection services. lot of neighbors do get worried about these type of projects, and rightly so sometimes, but we can't look into the future. we do know it is legally a single family dwelling. from the plans, it does look like it meets building code requirements, from what i see. >> president honda: inspector duffy, was there any permit history of illegal work being done on the garage level? >> i couldn't find any. there's no complains on it either. >> president honda: thank you. >> is there any public comment? seeing none we'll have rebuttal starting with the appellant. >> i'm the appellant's son. i wanted to start by saying good evening everyone. they were saying it was compliant with all the building department but i says on their website the type of building couldn't be visible from the street which the picture showed it was visible from the street. so that would not be in compliance. the owner came up here and described the number of bedrooms set by an illegal number that was not part of any plans or legal number. i think this represents more than a remodel. this is more than doubling the size of the existing home. many of our neighbors are elderly, who are not able to make it. a couple neighbors were able to file comments with you guys. these are people who have lived there for 40 years or more. who have described the neighborhood in one in which families grow up, grow fruit trees in their back yards and have open areas where everybody can barbecue and talk across yards. i think building this would cut off the yard an cut off a sense of that community, not to mention taking away the yards from kids. difference in height. there is a slight difference, but it's only about the height of the foundation. maybe one or two, maybe a foot or two higher than the other. you can see the distances for how that puts everything away. it's already a congested neighborhood. diane feinstein el menry is right across the school. we've got restaurants that are booming and happy to see customers. this represents, even if it is a single family, it would be a large one. it would be a further strain on an already congested neighborhood for parking and the number of other reasons, not to mention taking away our southwestern exposure for the sun, taking away any repb of view from the cottage, blocking off lights in the windows and generally setting a dangerous precedent, one that many neighborhoods stressed would -- style or type buildings. what could be relative in the future is up for debate and open for whatever happens in the future. right now we can stop that building from being the size that it is. i have no problem with, i don't think anyone has a problem be single family homes. what we're talking about building is something that would be larger than a single family home. thank you. >> we can have rebuttal -- did you want to say something? >> i just wanted to say, you know, we feel that putting in a house it's just going to start a press den. there are big megahouses that have been going up in various places around the neighborhood. soon as there's one, there's another and another. the street parking is just crazy. there's just an alley that's been used by the people who live on the street. they use some of that alley that has some -- there's never vacant parking on our street. there never is. when we have this huge church. we've got two restaurants on the street. it's just so dense. it is so incredibly dense there. it's gonna probably mean four more cars at the very least, six cars. one other thing i'd just like to mention. maybe it's not relative to this. maybe it is. in the neighborhood where my mother's house was near san francisco state college, there was a contractor who came in i guess and bought the house. he put in, we were told by people on the street he was putting in eight bedrooms for students at sf state. when you start this, the neighborhood is going from these houses where really truly they were family sized houses and there were yards for kids and so forth. there aren't that many playgrounds around. you can come out and look -- >> can i stop you for a minute. the clock stopped. >> i didn't hear the bell. >> president honda: sorry. i didn't know that either. >> it's because the clock stopped. we stopped the timer. but the timer is up. >> president honda: thank you, director. >> we can hear a rebuttal. if you have anything further to add? nothing further? >> president honda: thank you. >> okay. anything further from the department? >> i'd like to speak with planning. deputy director -- is it assistant director or deputy director? >> if you don't know by now. >> president honda: deputy dog. we've heard a lot about max houses. we deal with this on a regular basis. this is a benefit for the people in front of us. where are they as far as the envelope as far as their build and rear yard set back? are they code compliant? are they max buildout now or could they build further? can you explain where they're at? >> sure. they are -- rh-1. rear yard requirement at least 20%. this has a jagged rear line, so it actually, they would have a little bit of extra space on one half of the lot to go a hair deeper. and then it has a fairly significant front set back at the front and the maximum height here is essentially 30 feet. you can do three stories here. they're coming close to maxing out their two story envelope, but not touching what could otherwise be permitted to put a third story. granted, again, that would all be under review by the resident and design guideline. there's no guarantee they could get an entire third floor, but what they are proposing is well within what is permitted. >> president honda: generally speaking they could get a top story with a significant set back 30%, 40%. >> krebg. >> president honda: that would still be in compliance. >> i believe the square footage proposed, the home will be just under 3,000 square feet. >> president honda: okay. thank you. >> okay, commissioner. >> president honda: sorry. i have got one more question for the appellants. which ever, who ever wants to come up. just for clarity, i mean, there was 311 notification where they sent you a notification and you have the option to have a discretionary review or what we call a dr process through the planning commission. is there any reason why you did not respond? >> we never got that notice. the first notice was got -- well, we got a set of plans in 2015. then we got a notice of the approved permit. >> president honda: just so you know, they will come up and explain that. when someone goes onthe envelope of their home, beyond the footprint -- >> i saw the radius. >> president honda: they're next door neighbors. >> they're behind. >> president honda: okay. >> they're on 23rd. >> president honda: okay. maybe i can have the assistant da explain that. would they be in the radius? >> yes. on your block, you have the corners a little bit. usually everyone right around you. >> president honda: it's 150 feet. basically three to five neighbors on each side. >> the notification was conducted. i didn't have an opportunity to pull everyone there. >> president honda: we have to assume that it's a third party that handles these radius things. it's not the project sponsor. >> correct. they pull the data from the records. >> president honda: okay. thank you. >> commissioner lazarus: i don't see any issues with this permit. >> commissioner fung: two things that were brought up. one was the site coverage which, of course, leads to the size of the building and everything. if you look at the buildings that are there, they are all larger. have greater sight coverage than this particular project. it's co-compliant and therefore i see no basis to -- >> president honda: i agree. i believe, i live on the west side as well. this is within the envelope. there's no variances or exceptions which means that they're building beyond what they could build. i sympathize. i go to riverside myself. but they are within the envelope of what they can build. they're actually building less. they could actually max this out even further. so i would concur. would someone like to make a motion. >> commissioner lazarus: i move to deny the appeal. >> on that motion to deny the appeal and issue the permit on the basis that it was properly issued, vice president fung? >> aye. >> president honda. >> aye. >> commissioner wilson? >> aye. >> we are on the last item, item ten. anne mcateer and margret ruxton. 2941-29 2941-2943broderick street. new deck at fourth floor, removing exterior back stair, install new stair, mechanical electrical and sprinkler under separate permits. >> president honda: we are going >> a fire wall has all been part of the design plan and repeatedly rejected by neighbors to the south. based on a loss of air and light to the only three windows on the north facing side of the building, our building on the second floor. this design aspect has been a concern going back to the 2015 design team review which you'll see in your exhibit, exhibit document 2. a preapplication neighborhood outreach meeting took place in the spring of 2015. since that time, multiple renditions of the fire wall, including moving it to the north side of the building have been proposed. at each juncture the fire wall was rejected by the neighbors to the north and the south. the variance decision granted in november 2016 by the board of appeals was, quote, granted in general conformity with the plans on file. the current plans are not the plans referenced in that decision. immediately after the board of appeals made notice of decision on november 2016 regarding the appeal number 16047, the permit holder sent a new set of plans to the planning department attempting to capture additional interior space by expanding horizontally on the south corners of the second and third floors to the west and in violation of the notice of decision granted by the board of appeals. the appellants -- in stairway. this new plan was not submitted to the mcateers until march 8, 2017. at that point, the planning department who was overseeing this project was contacted and told that the plan was unacceptable regarding the new stair case required fire wall for new stair case and the new massing of the building on the south side. after a plan review with the zoning administrator, miss kirby e-mailed march 27th, 2016, quote, reviewed plans with the zoning administrator last week and we realize that there are a number of elements to the new design and specifically the massing that abutts your property to trigger a new variance. mrs. kirby asked the sponsor to revise the plans to address the issues that pertain to the fire wall and the new massing. you can see exhibit number 7 that is directly supports what i have just read. almost verbatim. no specifics of how this would be handled or mentioned. july 2017, edited plans were submitted to miss kirby by the sponsor whereupon she remailed me that the sponsor, quote, submit a new plan that appeared to meet all of my, miss kirby, requirements, and those outlined by the board. the confusion comes here with the outlined by the board referred to their decision in november 2016. this is confusing given that the decision was attached to another set of plans. the new new current plans removed the horizontal extensions on the second and third floors, retained a new stairway and firewall that abutted our property on the south property line. no explanation was given as to the reasoning behind retaining this stairway and firewall. you can see this on page 3 of document number 9. in fact, no explanation has ever been given by the sponsor of the benefit and the necessity of a new stairway bumping out to the south property line requiring a fire wall. even in his response to his first appeal number 16-047 and the appellant, the stair way and fire wall were not mentioned. in july 2017, the sponsor met with the mcateers at 2937 broderick to explain the fire wall. at that time, the mcateers expressed that the stairs be moved back to eliminate the fire wall. we didn't hear back from either party. this fire wall, regardless of its size, will block air, light and depth relief on the north side second floor of the mcateers residence and negatively impact all three north facing windows on the second floor. it would be greatly appreciated if the board would direct the sponsor and his client to consider constructing new decking and a stair way within the footprint of the current nonconforming depths as proposed by the residential design team going back to april 2015. quote, allowing the neighboring property to access to light an air similar to the existing conditions. this accommodation would meet the terms of the 2016 board of appeal notice of decision on the variance at the appellant's understood it. i can only assume that the desire for the new expanded stairway is to add additional feet to the deck areas. both of which are spacious considering the negative impact this will have on the neighbors interior and ebbing tier kwror space, especially regarding light an air and aesthetic appearance this request should be honored. thank you. >> president honda: thank you. >> commissioner lazarus: we can hear from the permit holder now? is there just a few seconds left? >> president honda: welcome back for the third time. fourth time. sorry. >> hello, board. i'll try to make this as brief as i can. i'm harvey hacker. i'm the project architect. mrs. mcateer is completely correct when she states that the stair at the south property line has been a part of the project since it was first shown to anyone, specifically at a preapplication neighborhood outreach where i made a special effort to explain by walking out on the deck to mrs. mcateer's husband who attended that meeting exactly where it would go an soliciting any opinion on it. later, after we turned in the plans for a permit application and which included a request for a variance, mrs. mcateer is correct that the residential design team had comments that included hoping that fire wall at that stair, the south property line, could be mitigated and reduced and, in fact, in the present version of the plan, it has been significantly reduced both in its extent and in its height. and that has all been reviewed and approved internally by the planning department including the planner on the case and her referring back to the residential design team. i have a diagram here, which is also in the brief that i submitt submitted. if we could show that, please. it shows a plan view and an elevation view of this area of the project which projects onto the elevation where the windows in mrs. mcateer's building fall. two of them are a story above the height of this firehall. the lower tier is interrupted by the fire wall that comes about one-third of the way up the height of the windows and it's five feet. her windows are five feet distant from the property line, which i believe is an extreme, little bit of an extreme statement to say that deprives those windows of light and air. i also think procedurally, this is something that was observed and commented on and discussed the last time we came before this board. i don't believe it's legitimate grounds for an appeal. i'm gonna give the rest of my time to the building owner. >> thank you. reza ansari, the building owner. just to refresh everyone's memory on the history of this project. this is the fourth meeting. 2005 we were here in front of you with discussions with the neighbors to talk about getting together and redesigning. we met back in september of 2016. still we didn't come to a conclusion. again with the neighbors after heavy consideration gave up complete second floor expansion on the basis. this is november 30th, i believe, meeting, that we had. under the board's direction, we came up with a design to expand a ground floor instead. and that's when you rejected the appeal back then. so after 2017 designing the new project, after heavy scrutiny by the building department, they approved it. i feel they vetted out any possible issues. i also contacted the mcateer's numerous times during 2017 and they did not reply. it was very slow reply. i even had harvey go to their house and spend time to review to explain the project which they came to understanding and they still appealed the project. thank you for your time. appreciate it. >> president honda: thank you. >> the original building permit was submitted in 2015. there was neighborhood notice conducted in july. august of 2015, and then the associated rear yard variance was granted in march of 2016. that variance decision was appealed to the board. the board of appeals held a hearing in november of 2016 which was a de nova hearing. you took the appeal and made some amendments to the variance decision. i'll just read those quickly. one is that reconstruction of the existing stair along the north be along the north side property line. two, expansion of the ground floor under the area of the existing deck. three, reconstruction of the decks above the ground floor level. four, construction of any necessary firewalls. five, removal of the expansion at the second floor. my understanding from reviewing the case and watching that hearing today is that the original proposal on what was approved under the variance originally the entire stair structure to access both levels of the deck was on the north side, near the northern property line. the original proposal and the original variance approval moved that all to the south property line. and because this was basically a complete demolition and reconstruction of these rear stair, the new construction had to be up to code, which meant fire wall along that south property line. part of the changes that this board made was to move that stairway back to the north side to access the deck from grade to the first level. however, there is still a stairway requirement to get from that first level of deck to the second level of deck and the second floor to the third floor. that remained on the south side. and the fire wall on the south side was part of the plans that were approved in the variance. they were part of the plans reviewed by the board that were used to make that final decision in november of 2016. during 2017, the sponsor submitted plans that went through rounds of review with the planner, miss kirby and administrators. i was not privy to those specific discussions, but eventually they got to a point where mrs. kirby and mr. sanchez felt that the project now the planning project requirement and the board had placed on the variance. part of the conditions the board placed were that they would approve any construction of any necessary firewalls. and, again, as i mentioned, because this is a complete reconstruction of those rear decks, fire walls were required because they went all the way to the property line on the south side, as mentioned by the sponsor. that firewall is reduced in size to some degree compared to what was proposed as part of the original variance. and planning department staff's opinion, the permit that was issued and is under appeal met all of the conditions of the variance that were placed by the board of appeals in their decision. i have copies of plans to go through and show if you need, if you want it. otherwise, i'm available for questions. >> president honda: first of all, what was the reduction in the firewall from its original until now? >> i believe the permit holder's brief had those dimensions in it. i can pull it up. i don't know exactly what they are. pay period it shifted a little bit. thank you. >> so according to the brief, based on recommendations from the planning department staff, height of the firewall has been reduced from 22 feet to 18 feet. swift has been reduced to 8.6 and staff permit holder that these were adequate and appropriate. >> president honda: second question is, miss kirby is usually in enforcement, right? >> she has been in various positions in the department. most recently she was in enforcement. she has recently moved to planning. >> president honda: that's the question i had. if she, miss kirby, had looked at that, i was wondering if it had gone to endorsement. >> i believe what happened with this was assigned to her before she came to enforcement and she stayed on the project. >> president honda: last question. this project has had a lot of process through it. i mean, a lot. and so from what this board has suggested in your opinion as the deputy da, assistant da, sorry, do you feel that it meets all our original = and our secondary requests? >> correct. again, miss kirby and mr. sanchez did a pretty lengthy review to that end in 2017 and came to that conclusion. i reviewed it in detail today and i found it to meet the board's conditions. >> president honda: thank you. i almost said mr. sanchez, but since he's home sick. >> that's okay. >> inspector duffy? >> commissioner, joe duffy. what you heard is mostly all plan related items. i did review the plans. look like they do meet code and they are code compliant. permit looks to have been properly reviewed through the proper city agencies. >> president honda: thank you. >> any public comment on this? board? >> president honda: welcome, sir. thank you for being patient. >> good evening. my name is david bancroft. i am a resident of the street where the subject properties are located. one comment i want to make right away, what's happened here is that with respect to the board of appeals first decision which is where the stairwell and the firewall were on the north side. what's happened now is with respect is that the stairwell has been moved to the south side. but not just moved. these were nonconforming decks. they should never have been put up to the extend they were. the planning department has so found. to those nonconforming deck, what is now an interior stairwell with respect to those decks has been moved to an exterior stairwell right up against the ap pellant's property. from that exterior stairwell on the south side, it's proposed that we -- the sponsor wants to hang a firewall. so now the issue boils down to, well, okay. i mean, not okay, but the issue is to what degree has that design, to what degree does it portend an obstruction for diminishment of the light and air for this appellant? it seems to me that if you -- i have been to the property. i have looked at this myself. mindful that i am an acquaintance of the appellant. i come to you and say that i have looked through this and it is a fact to me that the proposed fire wall will, in fact, significantly impede the otherwise available light an air to the appellant's kitchen. if you look at what the appellant has submitted on page 2 of her photographs, they pretty accurately depict what the situation is. if you look at this through her lattice work. the firewall essentially would come up to about this level. so my first point is that there is a significant impedance of the light and air. my second point is real quickly that it's very important so the first relief should be that the nonconforming decks should not contain an exterior stairwell from which a firewall is to be hung. that this be resentered to not require a firewall. thank you. >> president honda: thank you, sir. >> any other public comments? seeing none we have rebuttal starting with the appellants. >> good evening. i'm margret ruxton, 2717 greenwich street west side of the subject's property. in violation of the board of appeals decision dated november 16, 2016, the respondents propose expanding the decks that include a stair case in between the floors. respondents should not be allowed to violate the decision that only allows them to reconstruct the decks and, in fact, these decks already significantly intrude into the rear yard line and open space. the decision is that the project should be revised to allow for reconstruction of the decks above the ground level. this decision means the decks that include the stair case have to be within the current footprint. the limitation of the expansion of the decks was part of the decision that was a compromise. >> thank you. >> is there any time left? fifty seconds. basically, what i'm trying to understand here is what is the benefit to the owner of the property? and obtaining the additional footage on the two decks by pushing out a new staircase to my property line and can you you see that? they're going to push up against the property line in order to encase a stairway that can be just as easily encased within the inside pam ar ter of what exists there when it is new 6789 that is what we lost. so also, if you will look at the photograph that are attached. >> we have rebuttle from the permit holder. i'm not sure if this picture will show. it's off a phone. >> it's fine, lie it down. thank you. >> this is a picture of the current state of the two properties. the property you see on the left is the property and obviously on the right. this is the second floor you can see. the current railing impedes the light. from my understanding, this fire wall does not come above that railing that they have there. this is a top floor that won't be effected on their property. and this is a side angle view of both properties and where that fireball will be going. in my opinion, it does not impede. this case has dragged on as everyone as mentioned, for three years now and i request the board to reject their appeal. thank you. >> thank you. welcome back. >> thank you. president honda, cory teague for planning department and staff. i'm wondering if there's genuine confusion about the plans that they've been proposed every time my understanding reviewing all the plans is that the exiting contact and stairs is setback around three feet off the southern property line and the stairs and the access err on the north side and the proposal was to demolish that completely but and completely take the stair access and put it to the south. and by doing so, by moving the deck to the south property line, regardless of whether there's stairs there or not, that necessitateed a fire wall replaced there. that was part of the permit neighborhood notification plans and the varyance application that was part of the plans that were in front the board during their hearing when i watched the video today and i know there was at least two times that president honda specifically talked about and referenced the fire wall on the south property line and even suggested it may be better to put all the stairs on the south because that is the southern neighbors northern exposure as opposed to the northern neighbors southern exposure. that's not how it ultimately was approved. it's approved where the access was moved back to the north where it was originally but then the access from that first deck level to the second deck level still stayed on the south property line. again, regardless whether the stair access was on the north or the south the fire wall is going to be required and that is the case. whether there should be the deck there and that size and whether there it should go to the property line was part of the arrange varyance decision and that was the decision that was before the board back in november of 2016 and upheld that with these conditions. the question really before you today is whether or not this permit as issued, is consistent with your decision on the variance. that's the primary issue. again, it's stated planning department staff are reviewing is determining it is consistent with that decision and available for any questions you may have. >> thank you for clearing that up. nothing further from the departments, commissioners the matter submitted. >> i guess the assistance ant d.a. is saying we shouldn't take a second bite. if the discussion was extensive. early on in that discussion, i was against the vary -- variance the question that was raised substantially, given the variance was there someway we could tweak it to lessen the impact. i felt that and i still feel today, the impact of the stair on the move, would have a greater impact than if it stayed in the same location. at this point in time, it's my thought that the plans that is proposed match up with the conditions. >> i conquer. >> i do as well. the project sponsor although no one is happy here at this point in time, distance, money, complied with the direction we gave and as the deputy district or and assistant director and assistant d.a. mentioned, those were my concerns earlier but i feel the project sponsor has complied with everything we've asked and the department was very strict on enforcing that policy or those rules. i agree. >> move to deny the appeal and approve the permit as issued on the basis that it was properly issued. >> thank you, commission err on that motion then to deny the appeal and issue the permit on the basis it was properly issued vice president. >> aye. >> president honda. >> aye. >> commissioner wilson. >> aye. >> thank you, that motion carries with a vote of 4-0. there's no further business for the board tonight. brian larkin. brendan mcnulty alexander tonisson. >> okay. at this point i would like to adjourn this

Related Keywords

Diane Feinstein El , Corey Teague , Paula Davis , Anne Mcateer , David Bancroft , Zhou Xin Wei , Brian Larkin Brendan Mcnulty , Cory Teague , Joe Duffy , Kos Taj , Reza Ansari ,