requestor. you have three minutes. >> a thank you and good evening. a little think you for your time this evening. -- thank you for your time this evening. i never thought i would be in this situation and have never gone through a process like this. the reason i am asking for this jurisdiction request is i had an agreement in advance with my neighbor on for 48 diamond as to how idec would be built in the back of the building. i understood the impact of the building on my current home. we met several times and had several conversations during the winter of 2008, spring of 2009, spring of 2010 regarding the size and extent of the deck and

the depths of the structure. and wanted to be proactive in handle this in a neighborly fashion up front. i agreed to support the project based on a mutual grievances that the set -- a good debt woulenabling me to have quiet enjoyment of that area of my house. on april 8, there was a building permits issued. there was an appeal and i provided a letter to demonstrate my intent in support of the agreement and because of the mutual agreement we had as to how the deck would be built in the back of the property. on november 21 of this year, as i watched the building progress, i realize the building was not as we had agreed upon. i called my neighbor, she

responded quickly and came to the site. we had a number of conversations. none of which would permit the situation. that agreement is what i based my support of this property on. i have pulled a permit to do some work on my property. that was withdrawn in 2009. well my neighbor might use it at reference, that is currently extraneous to the issue of an agreement on how this property was to be built. i continue to support that, the building, not the way the rear is being built and impacting my quiet enjoyment, light, and air. i ask for the board to take a look at that and grant me a

request for an appeal. >> you are not the requestor? >> i supported this. >> i wanted to be clear. thank you. >> thank you. good evening. i am representing the owners of 448 diamond. this is where we believe this request should not be granted. if i may interject, commissioner garcia, the dr was based on demolition. she must demonstrate she could not file due to an inadvertent delays. she makes this claim nor is there any basis for such a

claim. aside from the arm of fassi -- the findings, there is no underlying error in review, there is no procedural and justice, no change in the project. from that described in the nullification and presented before the planning commission. without proper arguments to support her position, [unintelligible] this extension is not only smaller than the code allows but it is smaller than the extension originally supported in writing by the requestor. it was subsequently reduced in with to provide a five-foot side set back along the property

line. it is 5 feet narrower than proposed. at 18 feet 8 inches above grade it is exactly the height depicted and dimensioned. her request is based on a purported misunderstanding of the proposed height of this pop out. she said this occurred despite numerous discussions and despite her own design for a similar project on your property. adjacent to the neighbors. both parties agreed to an accord that involved construction on each property that comprised a rear main building at the 45% rear yard line. each property owner proposed an obstruction as permitted under section 136 c that extended beyond the wall. the pop out was to be one story

high. the drawings showed both projects side by side. the abernathys are committed to being good neighbors. it is unreasonable to lower a code compliant staff supported commission approved and legally project. we are here to answer any questions we have -- you have and we have some graphics that will give you a better detailed picture of the project. fo>> you are saying that the height of the deck has not changed? >> that is correct. i put a tape measure on it and it is built 18 feet 8 inches off

grade. >> one of the photos that was provided shows the pop ballad -- pop out. is that where the deck will protrude from? >> it is on the roof of the pop out. commissioner fung: it is on the -- >> thsi iis is the property and the existing debt and drilling. -- deck and railing. commissioner fung: is this the top of the pair pat? >> this is the top of the curve of the roof structure. there will be a railing 3 feet higher.

>> for every dimension of that? , at every point is the same elevation or is this a sloped piece of property? >> i would like to defer that to the property owner. it appeared to be level. the property is down sloping from the street which explains why there is a crawlspace beneath. >> i am trying to get an understanding, if there was a misunderstanding how that took place. >> the dec is level. from side to side. the elevation of the deck and the main floor is by the garage door. and in the front of the property to the base of the property. it drops 14 feet.

if you go the distance, it is 18 feet, 8 inches above grade. >> at the lowest or the highest point? >> at the highest point. the entire deck is 18 feet 8 inches above grade. >> do you have insight into how the misunderstanding might have taken place? >> when we had the conversation, there was an existing home on the property while we were having a discussion that was not demolished. it was difficult to see the slope and difficult to see how the home would be framed out. we did frame out the main building but not the deck portion. we were in flux with the

planning department on the with of the deck. it was difficult to set the elevation points. we did not have the sightline from the front to the back of the property. commissioner fung: it did make sense. thank you. >> enter department -- interdepartmental comment. >> i have a few comments and that was subject to discretionary review. there was a notice, no neighbor views were filed. there was a hearing and the requestor did submit a letter in support of the project and this -- no complaints have been filed with the building department related to the construction of the building. the most recent visit was

regarding framing and that was in the middle of december. it is our understanding of the project does comply. i am available for any other questions. >> i have a question about the poles. what do you think of a project's sponsor putting up story polls that do not represent the code -- spoke -- scope of the project. it is difficult for some of us to read plans, to rely on story polls as representative of what they might expect to see. >> it is not a requirement of the planning department nor is it enforced by the planning department's. we do not verify. we rely on plans, the accurate record of what the project will be.

based on the testimony the jurisdiction requestor did have an architect. we have provided them plans of the project. what? the department does not get involved? >> no. >> thank you. president goh: is there any public comment? >> what was the variants log? >> it was different set back variant. president goh: is there any public comment? seeing none of the matter is submitted. >> this is unfortunate. we do not have any evidence there was any intention on the

project sponsor to deceive their neighbor. i do not think that was the case. i mean this respectfully. it is our responsibility when a project is taking place that we think may affect our lives to go out and try to determine on our own with those dimensions will be and how it is going to look. we might want someone to look at it and sign off and say this is what iit is going to be like. i am sorry but nothing has been presented to us that should cause us to grant jurisdiction. >> i feel likewise sympathetic to the requestor.

likewise disinclined to grant the request. >> if you look at the photos, it would have been hard to imagine from the story polls the deck on that roof would have been lower than the appellant's deck or the jurisdiction requestor's deck. for whatever reason, the miscommunication occurred, it is unfortunate. but the time gap also is not convincing to me to take away the rights of the permit holder. i would suggest they turned to discussions on creating a screen and perhaps that would minimize some of the potential noise or

light interactions between the parties. >> i agree. is there moshin, commissioners? >> i would move to deny. >> is that on the basis that there was no error on the part of the city? >> thank you. >> if you could call the roll? >> we have a motion from the vice-president to deny jurisdiction. and the bases there was no error on the part of the city. commissioner fung, at ghaniaye. commissioner hwang, aye. commissioner go. -- goh. president goh: we will take a short break.