the commission asked to reduce the overall size of the rear addition. the prime sponsor deviate from the approved plan and received a stop work order. in addition to building numerous features beyond the scope of the previously approved a permit, they also added a substantial amount of dirt around the house, adjusting grade. this make it the department of building inspection job to verify the height difficult. haft prepared a side-by-side comparison -- i have prepared a side-by-side comparison, which are included in the end of the pact, to clarify and prepared the as built from the previously compared plan. the scope of work that bebe gets from the approved plan includes the height of the vertical addition being 1 foot 9 inches taller than the previous approval, the size of the front deck, which results in a reduction of the depth of the roofline, modified roofline of the entryway, the window pattern, bed and location, and

the chimney material. the department does not find these as built features consistent with residential but design guidelines and thinks they should have them corrected. ingleside terrace home association agrees they should not be approved by the commission. in addition to the ingleside terrace homes association, the department has received comments from six members opposed to the as built features. the department recommends the commission take d.r. and disapprove the project. additionally, in order to make the department of building inspection job easier when they're out and field, would like the commission to also reaffirm the maximum height of the building shall be 22 feet tall as measured from the top of the first floor at the front of the structure to the top of the finished roof. because the grade was adjusted, this is one of the only data points that has not been changed and is the only clear preference point on the previously approved

plan. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for questions and comments. thank you. president miguel: thank you. d.r. requestor? >> good evening, commissioners. i'm here on behalf of the hillside -- ingleside terrace homes association. my family came here in 1840. today i speak to you as a member of the board of directors of ingleside terrace homes association. i speak for the entire neighborhood and ask you to please take our comments very seriously. this case is pretty simple from our perspective. the owners of this property have been the owners for about 30 years. six years ago they apply for a permit to build up their home. after many hours with planning,

the were finally given a permit. unfortunately, from the very beginning, the disregarded the process -- they disregarded the process. they built with the wanted, not what the permit allowed. this brought about several stop work orders which were likewise disregarded. they continue to build even would stop work orders in place. this kind of action is terrible. we're very concerned that in the event their application for another permit as allowed, that the precedent that is said is absolutely going to be seen by contractors throughout the state of california as permission to go ahead and build what they want despite the permit allowances. in their rebuttal, they stated that their costs are out of control. and frankly, they caused every delay and cost overrun themselves. they consistently have refused to follow the letter of the laws in many ways.

we stand in opposition to their request to grant a new permit, which would allow them to continue with have done. height, built, bulk, with openings, and some of the deviations from the permit are just building bridges the beginning of a truly awful situation. simply put, itha please would you commissioners to disallow the permit and confirm the discretionary review permit process. we also ask you to place a time restriction on them that would force them to not only reduce the as-built to the original permit, but to finish the project. it is an eyesore. you would not believe it. his history what the california state license bureau is lengthy. i included parts of that and are filing. those that i included deal only

with properties within itha that he has done work on. the many notices of violation actual point to a total disregard for the rule of law. thank you for considering this very difficult situation that has been caused totally by the hubris of the owners. again, we ask that you did not the application and place a time line up completion of the project. we ask that you denied the application employs a timeline on the completion of the project. we hope that you listen to our neighbors, who will keep it short. this is a terrible situation for our neighborhood of 750 homes. the board strive to help our many neighbors understand the entire issue at hand. it is terribly unfortunate this has gone on as long as it has. thank you. president miguel: thank you. speakers in favor of the d.r.?

>> good evening. my name is ellen sandler. i will briefly remind you of a prior situation, or the owner was the contractor for a major remodel in 2007. the house is located -- and it is also on a different part of urbano drive, located immediately behind my home. within days of the sale of that home, i was aware that a major construction project had begun at the house, which i have a completely unobstructed view of from my house. having just completed the permit process myself, i notified my neighbors my intention to add a small deck. i wondered how this project had

started so quickly after the house had sold. at the final approval of my deck, the building inspector said the permit had been obtained. winning or rick, i found out that -- on inquiry, i found out that in over-the-counter permit had been obtained. as soon as the roof came off, i knew that this was no kitchen and bathroom model. the bedroom floor was reconfigured, removing a former back door and stairway, and framing was added for huge windows across the back of the house. neighbors had not been notified. during the next several months, the building department issued several stop work order is based on the fact that it exceeded the scope of the original permit, but the construction continues seven days a week. it several neighbors reported this repeatedly. during that process, he disregarded the rules. and finally we file the case

with the appeals board to stop the project. the board ruled new plants had to be submitted with careful scrutiny by the building department and that the 311 process needed to be completed. eventually, work continued on the project, the house was completed, but what about an 18- month delay. history seems to be repeating itself at the courthouse. -- at the correct house. the building of the project was stopped entirely because of his disregard for the rules. thank you. president miguel: think it. -- thank you. >> i live cattle corner, right behind the project on urbano. that house is a big box and it is way out of proportion with the other houses nearby, and i urge you to support the d.r.

thank you. president miguel: thank you. i>> good evening, commissioners. my name is aileen carter. i have suffered from private sponsors disobedience and noncompliance to the 2006 permit. the project sponsor overbuilt, causing both solar and property line encroachment for me. as a result, have suffered a loss of solar access for my panels as they have exceeded the height, approximately 18 inches, and the extent of damage still needs to be ascertained. second because of the little fireplace chimney, another violation of the permit, the product sponsor widen their driveway 4 inches with papers which now sit on my front yard dress line.

this was done to accommodate his illegal widening of the premises, precipitating the third properly aligned rigid property line to speak. the project sponsor does not pay any attention to any laws. he has no respect for the laws put in place. the only solution is to support the d.r. enforced. sponsor -- ended for the project sponsor to follow the letter of all with the original permit into the and 6. thank you for your time. president miguel: thank you. >> good evening. i purchased the house at 60 urbano drive in 2007, which had been remodeled.

last summer, a hardwood floors in the basement family room: curled. it was determined that the concrete poured by mr. winn around the staircase to the basement crumpled and allow moisture to seep under the floor and calls the bubbling and curling. the hardwood flooring and the concrete floor basement cell walls -- some walls and basements there was had been removed and replaced. the cost of this repair was approximately $9500. mr. winn should conform to the plans originally approved by the planning commission for 456 urbano drive. thank you. president miguel: thank you. are there additional speakers in front -- in support of the d.r.?

if not, project sponsor? >> i am the project sponsor. we had the approval to build the house with a total height of 25 feet 6 inches back in 2006. the actual building height is 25 feet 11 inches. which is about 5 inches higher than was approved. what we had to go through in order to prove that the measurement is only 5 inches, back in april, 2009, when the building inspector said the building was 1 feet 3 edges higher than approve because he was measuring from the steps down in front of the house. he made us go back and get another permit in order to

confirm that are approved height was 25 feet 6 inches, and we did. in may, 2009, the zoning administrator sent a letter indicating that our building is now 1 ft. higher than approved. the permit that was just done was in error. in june 2009, the planner email saying that our building is 2 feet 2 inches higher than approved. in july 2009, the planner sent an email saying that our building is now 3 feet 7 inches higher than approved. it in october, 2010, planning sent a notice saying that building is now out on foot 3 inches higher than approved. there are some discrepancies, is very hard for us to understand. but we did is we decided to hire a licensed surveyor to measure it, and he confirmed our house

is 25 feet 11 inches high, and he had all kinds of scientific instruments, whatever. however, even after that, i did not even know about the recent letter. now she says is 1 foot 9 inches. even myself, i don't know which measurement is correct. all i could do it is reliable license surveyor to measure. the reason why we came up with 25 feet 11 inches is because it was agreed with their as a lot of challenges by the planning and building measurements, they agreed on the reference point, with just three steps down from the front porch, 5 feet from the front door, all the way to the top. they said it is 25 feet 6 inches. the survey are said 25 feet 11 inches.

so 5 inches. i have the license surveyor here today to let you know how he measured, what the instruments he used, and he could give you all the supporting documents. when the board asked for the supporting documents, they never asked for the supporting documents. even though the survey are agree to talk to them, it would not listen. the second item or the windows. when we bought the house 30 years ago, we got aluminum single pane windows, which a lot of the houses on urbano drive still currently have, and those are historic windows. after we moved in 30 years ago, we changed it to vinyl and wood. those are original windows, you can still see them on the approved plan. so when we built this six years ago, i cannot even consider the

windows a major issue as far as energy, what ever. so the vendor said the windows are not as energy efficient as a simulated flight divider. the would divider, they should be fine. they called and said we would like to change the design. we said, yes, they are wood, so we got approval. but i am trying to say is the design guidelines -- look at the windows in the neighborhood. that is the house ought to doors down from us. -- that is the house ought to doors down from us.

all these on urbano drive have aluminum windows. iand then the pitch -- president miguel: thank you. speakers in favor of the project sponsor? >> my name is steve, i am a licensed land surveyor, and they hired me to check the building height at urbano drive. here is a picture. the instrument i am using is a swiss leica and i have a pdf

data collector, all state of the art. the measurement will measure -- instruments will measure through a glass prism or it will measure it through a window. so will measure to it places i cannot get to. here are copies of my field notes. and also a copy of the. out from the computer points. -- and also a copy of the. out from the computer. i'm just proving that i was there and did the survey, on october 22, 2010. i went and preparations for this hearing and went back to check the roof height.

and i am going to show you what i actually measured. it is kind of hard to see, but the approved height from the reference point to the top. pat to the topparapet is 25 ft., 6 inches. under permit, the actual height measured it is 25 feet 11 inches, 5 feet above the proof type. were measured from, the reference point, it is three steps down.

this wording here talks about or that is, 5 feet from the front. and i measured to the roof parapet. i did that with the refractor -- reflector-less instrument. i just point it up there and shot it and it also gives the elevation. thank you very much. president miguel: thank you. are there additional speakers in support of the project sponsor? >> hi. excuse me. my name is hector. i am responsible for the designing of the house.

i came up with the measure met -- what the measure met with the previous group of elevation. i came up with an overall height from the first floor to the top most of the front wall, which is 23 foot 9 inches, 33 foot 3 inches. iand then with regards what the house built, i came up with a measurement to the first floor, the main roof parapet, which is

24 feet 4 inches, which is the difference is 1 foot 1 inches. thank you. president miguel: thank you. additional speakers in favor of the private sponsor? if not, the d.r. requestor has two minutes for rebuttal. >> i'm done. president miguel: project sponsor has two minutes. >> we depend on the experts to help us measure the property because we did not know what is right, what is wrong. all we understand it is we got approved for 25 feet 6 inches, and it is actually 25 feet 11 inches, so we ask that you approve the 5 inches difference. for the windows, we ask you to

approve whatever we have. we thank you very much. president miguel: thank you. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: thank you. it sounds like in reading this report, although it is gone, there has been a lot left discussions about the measurements, but i think it was ultimately decided that it was at least 1 foot 9 inches beyond what was approved. >> yes. commissioner antonini: and there is some question as to what that actually was because there has been so much dirt moved on to the front yard, it is hard to survey, although from the street i guess there is a way to do it. >> right, and the front stairs have also been modified. at all the various reference points have been thrown out as reliable, which is why we

resulted to using the finished first floor at the front of the house. at the front of the house, right here, it provides an actual static reference point. these are their plans they provided, before and after. commissioner antonini: staff does this all the time, and i have to agree with your assessment. the other thing i am reading, there is also a setback problem. apparently they are 3 feet short of the desired set back. it was supposed to be 15 feet and they are less than 15 feet. >> the original proposal, we were ok with the original set back, but upon review of the new plan, the residential design team looked at the project again, and we tend to provide all options. they said either glove or the fight or if your going to keep a tight, shifted back a couple of

extra feet -- they said either lower the height or shifted back. commissioner antonini: so they're saying it take d.r., disapprove the permit, and it would have to come back with a new permit with the changes made. >> we would ask them to revert to the current 2006 permit which has a stop work order. icommissioner antonini: that sounds reasonable to me. there is a window issue, and i am very familiar with houses in that neighborhood. i don't live too far away, i am one lakeside village. ingleside terrace was built between 1970 -- 1917 and 1951, so some of the later houses were not built with the same quality of windows, so what you have to match is the style of windows in this house, not a more cheaply

built 1951 house. but that is not what is being done here. yes, it is important. we replaced the windows on our second floor and we made sure it was a duplicate of what was there before, not these snap and pretend the fighters for the windows, because that is not the same thing -- not the snap-in pretend it dividers for the windows. >> we specified clearly that they either be truly divided or three-dimensional on the interior to simulate that. we were very clear about the style. commissioner antonini: you don't have to look too closely even in these distant pictures to tell these are not what was there before. so i would go ahead and make a motion that we take staff recommendation, take d.r., and denied a permit commissioner sugaya: second.

president miguel: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: there's something sad about this whole thing. i have to believe that staff did a very thorough, un-vindictive and analysis. i don't believe we have a licensed contractor here. the misunderstanding could not be that large. it is a huge accumulation of mistakes, and that is my concern. aperhaps the zoning administratr could help me. when your contractor, don't you have to have a license? and don't you have to take continuing education? and if you make a mistake to go back and learn and you have to pretty much -- you are held closely to what you were supposed to do. this seems to be a string of missteps, and i don't understand how that can happen to such an

extent. >> yes, a license is required for a contractor to practice in san francisco and products such as this. that is all regulated through the department of building inspection and they are aware of all the violations associated with the property. commissioner moore: i have never quite seen a neighborhood that was quite as catastrophic as this one. there was one where project had changed hands and it was the covering of one mistake. unfortunately, i don't see any way of not moving ahead with disapproving d.r. president miguel: i have to agree. i find it ridiculous that someone could not follow very specific instructions, that stop

orders are totally ignored. this is a situation where people understand the language, where they can use a tape measure as well as other measuring devices, and still disregard it. you know, i have done minor projects myself, and i know whether or not a fits with my plan. at if i can do it, certainly a licensed contractor is capable of doing it. i see absolutely no reason whatsoever to approve this project as it is. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: unfortunately, this is not the only instance. there was another house on ingleside terrace which was red tag for about three years and eventually got finished and looks good, but it