somehow at fault causing lateness in the jurisdiction. we believe that this is the case. the permit sinn have triggered a review a year ago. the plans were faulty. the construction was modified from the original permit. there are now two massive modified facades made of glass and not open release -- freelance -- railings. please, the delay is not our fault. the public should be able to have careful consideration of this project. >> thank you. how have a question. i wonder if you can put the first picture up which shows the

roof deck as it is today. someone needs to mention it. i can mention it. can we see the picture? can you slide this up so that we can see the day and to the people of -- said that we can see the a and b? that is the kitchen structure. >> that is one of two kitchen structures. >> this is an example.

i can see a skylight. then i can see the wall. then you have a close-up picture? >> yes. this is an image taken a couple of days ago where it looks like the opposing attorney was meeting behind the kitchen with the facade that was reconfigured from the original permit. >> ok. thank you. >> you're welcome. >> the mind if i asked one question on the pictures? >> no, please. >> the second picture you put up?

what is that on top of it? >> this is a gas heater that appears in the is it a photo images to be hard wired into a gas line. i have never been on the property silt i don't know. there was at one time five of these. >> there's no structure over anyone's head? >> over -- other than the top. >> we can hear from the permit holder and their agent now.

>> this was continued. i am samantha wellington, i'm one of the permit holders. this hearing was continued said that the permit holders could provide the applicant and the board with the approved plan. o work on the product is complete. this matches the plan by issuing a certificate of completion. there is a procedural notification. there was one holder the required notification. i'm told that many neighborhood associations would like this

within their area. the argument is that we have built structures and a place which are such as kitchens. french is not required to be showed on the plans. all furniture does this become a movable appliances. there has been three anonymous complaints on the issues raised by the port. one such complaint was made after the previous board hearing on this matter. every complaint has been found to be without justification as all work conducted was within the scope permitted. this would be a waste to have a hearing on the merits.

furniture is not protected. they are only protected from various elected and public properties. we have created a sunken stairwell and maximize the amount of railing to give the best possible deal. there must be fidelity at some point in the planning process. all work is complete. we have confirmed on separate occasions including one occasion after the last hearing that the final work has begun and the complaints are done without justification if the request is granted, this will allow

appeals and complaints against a delicate issues. land owners could never have comfort that their investment was safe because even after getting relevant and appropriate permits and processes, there is still be problems. the california supreme court says that the property owner has incurred substantial investment, you are compelled to allow work to finish. >> can you comment on one thing raised by the appellant and the person who wants to get jurisdiction having to do with blocking the public view as opposed to individual?

>> the provisions of around public use, these are laid out in the urban design elements from the san francisco general plan. this sets out three important plans. the subject line is not detailed in the plants. the principle around protecting public use is the views are public property only if they are selected an important public properties. it conferences you back to the general plan and tells you to look up the streets saturday child in the journal plan as being important with their respective few. this street is not detailed. >> we're looking at the plans

that you are provided. the first is the scent that was approved in 2009 and -- the first is the set that was approved in 2009. >> there was the first set of plan, the first revision and then there was the july plan. >> in our package, do we have all three? >> yes. click to october 23rd, 2009, i am looking at that. it shows looking north, the kitchen on the left-hand side it is running parallel north and south. then one plan that is withdrawn is from 2010, this shows the same area but the kitchen is

running perpendicular. the photograph that we just saw from the jurisdiction request your, that was kitchen a, can you speak to this? >> when we submitted the revisions, it was actually submitted for a different purpose. we were of the understanding that we needed to make a change but we in fact did not need to make the change. we included a couple of changes. but we have been through the request and it was in fact when the late request was submitted that we discovered that it was still in the system at the

planning department. if i might speak now, the reason why we did not feel it was necessary because we did not actually built what is billed on the with strong permit. you can see a top floor but this was not built. all that is their is the furniture that covers from the elements. these are all appliances can -- that can be moved and all we're doing is protecting them from the elements. >> there is a grill and a trash chute and there appears to be a refrigerator. you're saying that this is not built? >> there is a grill there that is movable, there are other pieces there that are completely movable. the trash chute, you can pick it

up and move it. >> this appears to be a glass wall. that is in this set of plans that was withdrawn? >> it appears in the set of plans that were approved. this is a glass raving -- railing. >> ok. thank you. >> we are quite familiar with the rights and nature of jurisdiction. when i look at this case last time, i was not exactly sure what it was.

there was quite a bit of work done. was it condominiums after this was renovated? >> no. when it was renovated, the must have occurred in the last two years. >> the issue that came to me was

was the subject initially. i bought this from a realtor. the benefit that we gained by using the same architect is that you already knew the structure of the building. >> when you purchased it, there was no plans, there was no deck there at all? >> there was no doubt there at all. >> you and the other owners got together and decided to put this in. >> this was included use of the units. people agree that this was ok. >> thank you.

>> i just wanted to ask a question. what about the concerns about the usage of the deck. >> i must not have heard correctly. you cannot fit this in. >> had figured that i could give you a picture on the same day. when you can see is that this is from the pact. what you see is the house. what you see here on the top back roof, there are a bunch of people standing on a roof in a

relatively unsafe location. >> thank you. >> only think that -- data we can think about this was the blue angels stay. >> were you on the roof? >> that day. there was 16 people on the roof. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. scott chen says, planning department. -- this got sanchez -- scott sanchez, planning department. >> regarding the view from the public right away, i went out of the location and i walked down

and found that there was not much of an impact on the view. it was probably a 5 foot stretch or so. there is a lot of vegetation. a lot had been recently cut. this is not sufficient to have an adverse finding. this is not public open space or a public park. this is not a feud that we would say that needs to be protected at all costs. those are the things that i wanted to update the board on. >> how is it noticed when a project is going to affect any of you from any public place? -- an view from any public place. >> there is a section which applies to the building

additions. not just structures. there has been a subsequent interpretation that in certain occasions we would do notification of decks, especially if they are in the your yard -- the rear yard. that is why we would not do notification. >> what about any structure that would affect viewsd from public spaces? >> if this was like a pet house, this would not trigger an edification. the use from public right away, this is something that we would review on the case by case basis given a location. >> why would this not be triggered? >> the dec is a structure, this is not actually increasing the building envelope.

viscous -- and penthouse would not be translucent. this project is. >> can you speak to the question that i had asked the permit holder about the configuration on the kitchen on the plans that were withdrawn and those that have been improved. >> i have not been out to the deck itself, i went to the surrounding locations and to look at the view from the public space. i did take some photos from the roof. i can put one on the overhead. what to they have said in terms of the rotation of the kitchen -- the cabinetry on the west side, but the building

department has been not location and says that this has matched the approved plans. this is built according to the plans. >> can you bring that picture down and build it? you were pointing at the green. >> yes, that is from the same area. this is impossible to tell if this is at a different angle or if this has been rotated to to be parallel to union street or perpendicular to union street. >> that is their reason because it looks like it matches the withdrawn plans. >> i believe that she said that that ruling is not open and

there is no cabinetry behind it. that was my understanding. >> i am looking at the plans that are approved on october 3rd, 2009 and i don't see these on the plan. >> as correct, there seemed to be a discrepancy. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. before you sit down, i understand the chronology to be that the permit was issued in october of 2009 and far -- and

in between was the time when the jurisdiction request came and, at the know what communications take place with respect to a jurisdiction request of the project that your department has approved? >> could you repeat a question? >> the you learn that a project has a jurisdiction request filed on it prior to the issuance of --

>> if we would to learn that there had been a jurisdiction request -- we don't get any official notice that says we must suspend or take action. >> we do send copies of the filings to individuals. >> what do you do? >> this does not require us to suspend or stop the action on a permit. people are committed to complete the work. >> in this case, did you have any knowledge of the jurisdiction request? >> i would have to look at the date. >> september 2nd was when this was submitted. i don't know at which point you would have gotten a notice but

this was when it was issued. >> i cannot tell you. the inspection is actually done by someone and they get a copy. >> can you give me an approximation on the time line? is this dependent on the complexity of the project? >> the building code is clear and how long you have to complete the work. people request to the extensions. this is completely up to the owner, the project sponsor. most are valid for about a year. how long does it take in the time between a contractor and an owner comes to your office and

says that we are done, you are completed. you send someone out to make the assessment. >> how long does it take us to do an inspection. we usually do this within a few days. >> after the inspection, typically how long does it take? >> till we recorded this and show it on the computer and all of that stuff. >> we heard mr. sanchez said that it looked like from the photostat maybe the kitchen, was reconfigured to run perpendicular but was parallel, can you take a look of that also? >> i cannot tell if this matches or not. i think that there is another

issue which is that the building code has some exemptions from certain types of equipment such as furniture. it might be that the inspector is not considering the equipment which is movable or mobile. furniture is not required to be in this exact location. i cannot say that this is the case. furniture is not regulated. >> one would imagine that a trash chute would be built in. >> i don't know what she meant my trash chute. i don't know what that is. >> it sounds kinda funny to me. >> we this is a magical mood of the device i have not seen. >> thank you.

>> thank you. courses are any public comment on this item? -- >> is there any public comment on this item? herme>> some things you for heag us today.

ryan the current president of russian hill neighbors. we are a neighborhood organization with over 600 members. we are the voice for residents and merchants to preserve and advance neighborhood character and quality of life but for collaboration and volunteerism. our primary concern is that this project seems to have not followed to legally required procedures for approval of this kind of construction.

at appears that this was issued over the counter without going through planning. this is a project considerably more extensive. process is important. the request is because the process was not closed. >> thank you.