director goldstein: the september 14, 2011, meeting of the board of appeals. we are now on item 5 (c), a

subject property at 1844 laguna street. this is a jurisdiction request that received on august 19, 2011. the permit holder is california investment llc, and the project was to provide a roof deck and two skylights, altering the roof, replacing windows to french doors, and converting the addict to habitable space. we will start with the permit holder. >> we were denied due process. we have a picture. commissioner goh: just make reference to the overhead, and they will show it. >> we decided to rehabilitate

the house. to make a fair and reasonable profit. the issue is that they created this deck that bears directly down on our deck, and we were never notified publicly, and this was done in a clandestine and hid in manner. they erected scaffolding and put a curtain over it. we went on vacation and found this, as the overhead washoe, this is -- as the overhead will show, this is the deck. these exhibits are also in the package, a statement. you can see that that looks directly down on us. it limits of privacy and blocks the light. we also have a hot tub, which is no longer private. but the crux of this matter is

notification. we never received notification. mr. cassidy in his statement said we were never required to receive notification, and i do not know if that was true or not, so we went down to the permit bureau and ask, what kind of notification is required? the woman who worked back their look at the document, and they said, yes, they mail denazification to -- they mailed notification to some, including the house across the street, but not us, and i asked why we were not notified. there was a notification from that day, but we were never, ever notified. and we want to know why that is. there is something wrong with that process. something seems tainted that we were not notified.

we are long standing residents of this community and have been there for over 20 years. both of our kids were born while we lived in this house. our daughter is a nurse here. they just feel that they can do what they want without every reference to the neighborhood, so if a notification is required, which i believe we were never notified, and we just want an open and fair process. we are not asking for any special treatment. [bell] thank you. commissioner hwang: i just have a couple of questions. the one with the deck, are those -- what are those? are those just walls around the deck?

is that something that someone can stand on top of? are those walls? >> no, that is a thin fence. commissioner hwang: it is a privacy fence. so the next picture is as would be viewed -- how do you do that? >> i stood on a ladder. commissioner hwang: the thing i am having a hard time understanding, if there is a wall there. >> this fire wall, i stood on that. commissioner hwang: no, the wood on the deck. commissioner goh: put the other picture up. commissioner hwang: what i consider like a wall of wood, can they actually see through bad -- that? >> they are way up high.

director goldstein: you can point to the overhead. >> how high is that? maybe four feet. more than that. mr. cassidy allowed us to do that. it was up to my mid chest. commissioner hwang: they can stand there and -- >> look right down on my deck. the deck exceeds their permit in size. commissioner hwang: thank you. commissioner fung: your deck is on your second floor? >> yes. any more questions? i want to point out one last thing. mr. cassidy and his colleague are here. i do not know if they were present when the oath was given. director goldstein: we can hear

from the permit holder now. >> good evening, commissioners, president goh. i am -- from an engineering group. the original permit has a discrepancy, and it says "to allow up to 120,000 square feet -- 1000 square feet." we actually have gotten a revision, a permit approved by planning and building, to show the exact square footage of the deck and the height of the rail. we would like to ask or a continuance to work with the zoning administrator, scott sanchez, to confirm that the

final permit and the revision permits meet all of the guidelines of the planning department and the requirements, and i am available for questions. vice president garcia: is this permit appealable? >> it is, correct. vice president garcia: a request for jurisdiction. >> sorry, i did not understand you, mr. garcia. commissioner fung: it was just a statement that he made. vice president garcia: if a revision has been applied for, and it is appealable, we should wait for that. >> that depends on the scope. vice president garcia: so it may not be appealable. >> it would depend on -- director goldstein: the scope of the revision permits.

>> we do have some pictures of the view that would be down into the back decjm if you would like me to put them up on the project -- that would be down into the back deck. commissioner fung: just say " overhead." >> that is a view from the second floor, not the floor where the deck is. that would be a limited view, where there jacuzzi is. commissioner hwang: that is an existing view? >> if you go up further, you have literally no view. i will put the next picture on. commissioner hwang: can you turn the picture around? [bell] commissioner hwang: which one is our house?

can you point to it? >> you can see the trellis in the jacuzzi. -- and the jacuzzi. i am sorry. right there. where my finger is. that is the jacuzzi taken from the corner of the property owner's deck. commissioner goh: does that not depend on the level of the camera? if you were looking straight down, you could see in their garden. >> that is taken directly in the corner, shooting down. they're building is in the same plane as the permit holder's building, as well -- their building is in the same plane. i have something that the permit holder may not be in agreement with. one thing we have suggested is putting in a two-foot privacy

rail. commissioner goh: we are just looking at a jurisdictional request. we would need to grant jurisdiction in order to look at that. commissioner hwang: -- >> thank you, director goldstein. >> scott sanchez, planning department. i reviewed the plan, also plans that were submitted as a revision. it is my understanding that the permit which is before you in the jurisdiction request, construction exceeded the scope of the permit. the department of building inspection issued a correction for that and five of the revision permits. on the original permit comic it is -- on the original permit, it is code compliance.

the revised plans showed the wall being partially in the rear yard. that would necessitate a variant. one reason for a continuance would be to do a measurement of the rear yard. there was a rearguard of 22 feet, which would comply with the rear yard requirement -- there was a rear yard 22 feet. that would probably be the best solution here. basically, and the planning code, for a portion of the deck -- under the planning code, it would be a portion of the deck, and it would also trigger a neighborhood notice at that point because we do have a policy that if it is on a

noncompliant portion of the building, if the debt is on noncompliant portion, we would do a courtesy notice -- if the death -- deck is on in noncompliant portion -- on a noncompliant portion, we would do a courtesy notice. i thought continuing the jurisdiction request would maintain the ability to request jurisdiction on this permit, but as vice president garcia noted, -- is also be an appealable document, and i believe the scope is a same -- would also be an appealable document. certainly, the board has the ability to grant jurisdiction

here and hear the appeal on this matter and here -- hear this. we could discuss this with the city attorney's office, but i do not know what ability there is to deal with a revision permits. commissioner goh: i thought we heard earlier that the scope was not the same and that the revision permit would not allow us to have the same scope? >> i believe that the scope of this permit is the deck, and the scope of the revision permits is the same -- permit is the same. commissioner fung: what was stated earlier is that it is possible that the revision permit is not the same scope. commissioner hwang: is does not

moot necessarily -- a continuance would then allow time to do the comparison, and it does not in any way prejudice the requester's rights. commissioner fung: i believe also that this takes precedence over the original permit. >> that may be correct. vice president garcia: mr. sanchez, if you can put that picture up again that shows me -- the deck and the solid wall, so maybe i can more fully understand some of the issues. >> so on the overhead, we have a photograph of the rear of the building that shows what has been constructed, and so this solid parent but -- parent but

-- the solid structure, in order for it to be solid, it would require a variance, and if it was open, it would be approval under the planning code without a variance, -- it would be approvable under the planning code without a variance. let's say there is a 17-yard -- a 17-but -- a 17-foot rear yard, it could be solid. vice president garcia: the building structure underneath it is complying? >> it would be a legal noncompliance structure if it is located there. -- a legal, noncomplying

structure. to do so would require a 10-day courtesy notice under our requirements. vice president garcia: or they could move back 3 feet and avoid off future -- my >> there would be no notification required -- and avoid all future -- >> there would be no notification required. going to an open really does not seem to protect the privacy considerations. -- going to an open rail really does not seem to protect the privacy considerations. if they then choose to, they can apply for a variance. it is their choice. if they bring it back, that could solve -- commissioner hwang: