it might be holder that may be better directed to the architect. i wonder if you have a copy of the permit our applications that were made in june and then withdrawn. do you have copies of those? >> i do not have them on me. vice president goh: i wonder from building if it is possible to look at a copy of those. >> there will not have record of them. the june revision was never officially submitted. it was never processed. they would not have any record of those documents at all? vice president goh: if the application was presented to bdi? -- dbi? >> they give us a permit application number. that was all they give us. we actually took the drawings away. it was going to be an over the counter revision. it was withdrawn, so there was

no record of it. vice president goh: ok. >> scott sanchez, planning department staff. just to clarify, this is a printout from our property information system. the top permit is the june permit. this means it was given to the department of building inspection. if it was an over-the-counter permit, it does stay with the permit holder and they bought it from station to station. they may have just gone down, had the number registered, and taken the permit with them. i will let the deputy director kornfield elaborate, but that is my understanding of the process. that is what the plans may not be on file with the department. vice president goh: i wonder if i can see that again. that is revision 2. what is revision 1?

>> the skylights and windows not visible from the street. vice president goh: to add skylights. that is dated april of this year. >> i think the permit was submitted in february. the action date is the last inspection date on the system. the permit number indicates the application date. it looks like it was a february 24 application. that was revision one for the skylight. the original permit was submitted october 21, 2009. vice president goh: does that original permit safe kitchens? i am having a hard time reading it. >> we have copies of the permit itself. you can look at that.

>> should we call public comment, or the want to have a minute to look at those? vice president goh: go ahead and call public comment. >> is there any public comment on this item? step forward. >> my name is mary russell. my husband and i are new residents of russian hill and originally from southern california. we have been coming as tourists to san francisco for a long time. we have enjoyed many parts of this city. the historical views are part of that. a couple of weeks ago, we went back to visit one of our favorite sites. when it arrived, we were

surprised to discover that the views had been obstructed. i am not exactly clear on what the debt consists of, but i can tell you that on each end of the deck there are two structures that are big block structures that are tall enough that they obstruct the view of alcatraz and you cannot see above it. you cannot sit around it. so i am here today because i feel very strongly about preserving public views, especially the use of historic monuments. the lane has its own history. the views from the lane are the landmarks of other trends -- of

alcatraz. they are the reason many people from the world walk-through and buy this land. it is on your city walks map of san francisco. because i grew up in southern california, a am acutely aware of how necessary it is to be vigilant and how important to save things we tend to take for granted. i think these views should be protected. they are a legacy to the city. they are a legacy to people around the world and to future generations of san franciscans. i think anything you can do to support that would be very, very helpful. president peterson: is there any other public comment? seeing none, unless you have further questions, the matter is

submitted. commissioner garcia: i have a question for mr. sanchez and a question for mr. cornfield -- kornfield. private these are not protected. public views are. i am sure that was taken into consideration when the permit was reviewed by planning. >> under section 1 01 0.1, which was derived from prop them, dues from public rights of way would not be impeded. i am not aware of any blocking of the public view. this is the first i have heard of it. i have not had any opportunity to investigate this claim or to review that. commissioner garcia: i will ask the same question for mr. kornfield. it seems like most of the issues raised by dr. kravitz have to do with nonconformance to a permit and not why he did not file in

time, except for the notice issue, which has been addressed. if there questor fort jurisdiction 0-- requestor for jurisdiction did not do that, there are other options than the board of appeals, correct? >> the department of building inspection could verify that it is what on the building plan -- what is on the building plan. >> so there is a question of whether planning should have in the first place granted the permit? >> that is an argument that could have been explored. however, i would point out that even if there is a minor view issue, that in and of itself would not be enough for us to deny the permit. we would have to have other reasons for denying the permit. as i said, this is the first

time i have heard of it. commissioner garcia: thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is before you. president peterson: i think i have some more questions for mr. kornfield. i am looking at these plans, the revisions approved march 5, 2010. would it be possible to have them put on the overhead? >> sure. let us see.

president peterson: the interior elevations and details in a2.3. let me just ask my question. -- vice president goh: it does look like these plants have in then the sky lights and the location of the kitchen appliances. so i wonder if this is a change. they look different, and these from the earlier set. i wonder if that was a change that was made in between. >> i can only tell you what the plans show. vice president goh: but you have both sets. >> the permit holder and has both original sets, well-worn and available. i note that one of the sheets is

not be approved stamp sheets, but generally it seems they are. >> let me ask a question differently. i am sorry i am not being very clear. the march 5, 2010 approved plans a company a permit application for the "add skylights and replace existing windows. however, on those plans it appears that there are these kitchen appliances that are crossed out as though it is a change. -- vice president goh:. they were in the original permit application. they are still in the revision. vice president goh: i am sorry. i did not follow that. >> if you look at both pages of a2.1, you will see in the plan

the two kitchens that are shown here and also the revision set will have kitchens indicated. vice president goh: there is something crossed out here that is not on the new one, and it says something like "floor- mounted gas something." >> that is the guest teacher. we found that was going to be problematic. but the issue about the kitchen, a concern the kitchens were not in the plans was incorrect. the kitchens were always in the plans. vice president goh: ok. thank you. commissioner fung: were there

any further questions? commissioner hwang: no, thank you. commissioner fung: i will start. if this case was purely to look at the nature of the deck, then i would have probably quite different comments and what i am going to make. but it relates to the fact that some people are taking something which is basically a shared right from all those properties. however, the question in front of us is whether jurisdiction is served because of an issue with either the process. that, unfortunately, i do not see for granting jurisdiction.

and i know that the planning department and my fellow commissioners know my opinion, especially of obstructive? -- obstructive decks. however, i do not believe that is the issue before me. vice president goh: to be clear, you're leaning against granting jurisdiction in this case? commissioner fung: that is correct. commissioner garcia: i tend to agree. one almost wishes that what was before us was some of the process having to do with the fact that it is a reasonably large, at least judging from these photographs we have to appear, a reasonably large superstructure on top of this building. it seems odd that you walked in and get a permit over the counter and the only notice that

had to take place was the adjacent neighbors. but the plans were approved. if it is not as it should be, i think dr. krafitz -- kravitz would have to make some complaint. i hoped dbi is not trying to give -- let projects be built that do not conform to the plans. as to whether there are grounds for jurisdiction, i have to agree the notice was proper. i think there has been a suggestion that the doctor was already aware this project was going to take place. as has been stated several times, he would have had to go down to see them.

it seems the owner in this case never refused to allow him to see it. i would be opposed to granting jurisdiction. vice president goh: i take a bit of a different view, which might be different if i had these plans in the packet and had been able to look at them more carefully before this. we heard during public comment today about fraudulent plans being submitted to the planning department. we also heard about these fraudulent plans being approved by the planning department. now we hear in this jurisdiction request that the original plans did not include some of these items, or that they had been moved from the original plans. my quick look at the to does look like there was something that was moved. maybe it was just teachers and the application that was done in

june was just for that and it is not a problem. but i am troubled enough that i would say, as we have said in other cases, that this requestor could have his day in court. i also want to mention the planning department st. here in the hearing that the deck is 8 feet above the height limit, and hearing from the public that from the public perspective that views which should be and are protected from public places have been obscured. i would be in favor of jurisdiction in this case. president peterson: what would your grounds for jurisdiction be? >> the grounds need to be not the fault of the jurisdiction requestor, so i would put the blame on the city for the plans being questionable and

permission being issued when the project perhaps did not comport with the plans. -- vice president goh:. president peterson: it is almost as if the issue is whether or not we are exceeding the scope. it is clear by law that there was proper notice and that this is a party jurisdiction request. we do seem to have questions about whether the work has indeed exceeded the permit. i do not know if we can continue to wait to get a report it, but there does seem to be some discrepancy if you look at what is before us.

commissioner hwang: i think this case presents a lot of difficult issues. are you suggesting that we continue it? can you continue a jurisdiction request so that we would have jurisdiction over its? >> until the request is granted, the permit does not come under the board's jurisdiction. there is no suspension of the permit currently in place, although here you have the unique circumstance of a permit re cfc -- where a cfc has already been issued. commissioner garcia: but

remember that the doctor can go ask dbi to go out there and make sure that our conformed. mr. kornfield already stated that is available. for us to grant jurisdiction and take over the process when the process is already in place to me seems to be a waste of resources. vice president goh: if someone wants to make a continuance? president peterson: i think many of us -- that is ok.

i think many of my concerns have been addressed already by my fellow commissioners. -- commissioner hwang: i think this is a difficult case. i am not sure what options we have. my inclination from a process standpoint is to deny the jurisdiction request, but i do think the comments from the public about issues that have been presented are compelling. and i think that the questions on the permit itself, with the absence of an opportunity to really review the plans also creates fundamental issues of fairness. i am not sure we can be in that position to address it. if there is another process here for the requestor to seek real enforcement of the plans, maybe that is the best way to go.

vice president goh: i will go ahead and make a motion to grant jurisdiction. >> the vice president's motion to grant jurisdiction. commissioner fung? commissioner fung: this is a tough one. vice president goh: i could make one more comment. that is that we have voted to grant jurisdiction in other cases to allow the person their time in front of us. commissioner fung: aye. commissioner garcia: no. president peterson: no. commissioner hwang: aye. >> the motion to grant

jurisdiction fails for a lack of four votes. if there is no further motion, jurisdiction will be denied. shall we call the next item? vice president goh: someone could make a motion to continue. is that right? i will make a motion to continue the jurisdiction request. >> president peterson, do you want to specify if there is anything in particular you would want to see happen during the interim? vice president goh: i would like the plans and permits that were applied for subsequent to the permit at question to be made part of our packet and part of the record. >> and to what date?

vice president goh: november 3. commissioner garcia: can i ask a question? could a commissioner request that those items be made a part of the record without us having to continue? vice president goh: i think they are part of the record because they were given to me by mr. kornfield, but my point is that i have time to look at them. >> on that motion to continue -- commissioner garcia: what is the motion? >> to continue to november 3 to allow the permit subsequent to the one being submitted for discussion today to be made part of the commissioners' packets. commissioner garcia: or to be reviewed, because there might be some process to make them part of the packet without having to continue an item.

could we say to be reviewed? commissioner fung: would you consider october 13? vice president goh: yes. i commend my motion to continue to october 13. commissioner garcia: can i ask a question before we call the roll? is part of a jurisdiction request that has to do with improper notice of of some part on the fall of the city that would prevent someone from having filed in a timely way, does that include something to do with the application? i am confused. madam city attorney? >> are you asking me? standards have been set forth for the board's authority to grant jurisdiction in case law

is that a finding that the city was somehow at fault in causing the lateness in seeking jurisdiction. commissioner garcia: maybe the commission made the motion to explain how this -- maybe the commissioner could make the motion to explain how this ties in? vice president goh: i would ask the city attorney to do research in the meantime that would be protected under the attorney- client privilege. commissioner garcia: what research is she to do? >> that would be protected. commissioner garcia: she is just to research without knowing what she is researching? i understand that. i am just making clear. vice president goh: if we put it on the public record, then --

>> should i call the roll on this motion to move the item -- continue the item to october 13? commissioner fung: aye. commissioner garcia: no. president peterson: no. commissioner hwang: aye. >> ok. the motion is 3-2, so the motion carries. the item will be continued to october 13. there will be no additional briefing. it is simply to allow the permit holder to submit the approved plans as requested. thank you. vice president goh: director, and to our attorneys to mr. cornfield or put them -- do i return these to mr. kornfield or put them in my pocket? president peterson: i do not

know if this came from you or someone else. >> we would need to have these plans submitted the thursday prior to october 13. if you have any questions on exactly what the board is asking, please call me tomorrow. >> and they should also be provided to the requestor. >> yes. president peterson: do you understand, dr. kravitz? you can also call me tomorrow if you would like to discuss this further. >> president peterson will call the next item, item five, trudy maurer and peter linn versus the

department of building inspection processing the issue on march 29 to joseph and sophfia new to erect a three story building on 1325 portola drive. this was continued to today to allow time for the planning department and permit holder to submit additional plans, with no additional briefing. we will give each party 3 minutes, starting with the permit holder. or your agent. please step forward. >> the issue here, i think, is the documents mr. frong asked --

mr. forn asked- -- mr. fong asked me to submit. they had it on file, but it was a very big copy. i was not aware i had to submit 12 copies. but it was included in the approved plan. i made those copies so each one would be able to review. i did not have to provide any additional documents due to the fact that we have discussed everything, i think. i do not know whether we have to keep going on and on and on to explain how these things would get approval, because it took us a year with the woman who checked th