that is totally correct with all of the new windows, labeled and so that we know exactly the precise scope of the entire project. yes, we will receive a set of plans and consolidate a set of plans, friday at 5:30, after i already left the office and went back and work on it over the weekend. and then, the roof plan was handed to me shortly before 5:00. the project sponsor was asked to please continue this matter so we can a correct set of plans that can be submitted to the building department. because one of the issues is that last time they said that they would submit a set of plans to replace them. however the landing of that staircase, goes beyond the common property line.

so there are some issues that have to be worked through in terms of the property line issue that we have not reviewed and at times have to look at. because none of the plans that i have seen as of today tells me the distance between the property line and the north side. and that is a pretty important piece of information for my client to have to deal with that. we also told them that we are definitely willing to sit down with them to come up with some kind of an agreement and using that space without putting a fence in the middle. but we have not heard back from them and so, at this point, i ask that you deny the current permit. and i am not actually sure that any of the plans that we were talking about today that i have received, all that is before, or that was given to the

administrator, was actually filed as a revision to the building department. so that it is really nothing before this board. and i think that the clean way to do it is to deny the permit. have them submit a complete set of consolidated permits, and would be happy to work with the projects sponsor to move the thing along. but, they cannot jaming us with short deadlines and saying, no we are not going to give you another week just to really sit down and sort all out of the issue all at once. >> counselor, the survey was only a boundary survey. >> it was only a boundary survey because they also did not show, normally you show the height of the roof, elevation, and that is not there. so, for us to try to figure out

the non-conformity and what has to be done is difficult. because this is one of those sites where the height sort of goes up here. so part of the area is conforming and part of the roof. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> brian soriano for the permit holders. it is disconcerting to hear the recitation from miss barkly, that we are not focusing on the roof deck expansion permit which is the purpose of the appeal that has been filed. she wants to latch on to a boundary issue from the survey that is not affected by that permit. the bottom line is that mr. sanchez says that these are not issued that can be addressed here, they are preexisting issues that go back 50 to 100 years and there will be away to discuss those issues but they

don't support holding up this project which they have been able to do since december fifth by filing a general appeal, in fact it is really a two paragraph preliminary statement of appeal that never mentions any detail about the roof expansion permit. they never filed a subsequent brief. they just have a general statement about bad actions that they want to attribute to the permit holder, but now we are here and having the hearing and they cannot identify any concern about that permit. since last week we have been providing plans that they want and worked with mr. sanchez from planning and from what i hear and understand, the revised plans they did bring it down while on the roof deck a bit so that they could be code compliant and the only issue that i am hearing is that there is this ten day notice requirement that would be triggered. now that should not really be the reason that we hold this up for any additional time. which is costing the project

builders significant money. what mr. sanchez proposed if we could work something out that will safety the notice requirement. it is really an issue that has no impact because as mr. sanchez told you and you have an exhibit 11 that were admitted. the only other neighbor that would be affected by the notice is that jackson street neighbor that signed off on this and that is exhibit l. and the remaining abuting neighbor is here. they were able to appeal it within the 15 days and it is the same party that we were willing to wave the notice requirement for if we came to some agreement. i am suggesting that seeing no permit in the appeal that has been filed by them, suspecting that this is just a dilatory tactic to get a settlement agreement on issues that are not properly before the board today, i think that the board has the ability to order that the revisions to the permit to modify the permit by the

revisions that have been submitted to planning the architect and mr. pips is here if you have specific questions and the details of the revisions as he can confirm is providing the roof deck elevations there is no concern, there is no satisfy concern, no code concern. there is a concern from these neighbors to try to force the project sponsors into signing in general settlement agreement that gives them rights. we are we have issue that had will require ongoing discussions we will engage them in ongoing discussions they should not be able to improperly use this board to gain leverage in a negotiation. so i ask the board to modify the permit, and let the project's owner move for toward. at this point they have been able to stop work on the project by filing those two paragraphs on december fifth and not supported it with any detail. we emailed them at 5:00 and they had the plans last friday

and these were the revisions after meeting with planning and addressing any concerns that they had. also we addressed some of the administrative concerns that alice and her partner had suggesting that this page should be in front of this page and this back at the back of this page. and nothing that had a legitimate concerns about what is being built under this roof deck expansion permit and so if you have specific questions, i will be happy to answer them. if you would like to see any of the detail that has been provided mr. fips is here with the plans and if you would like to corroborate and i do not speak for mr. sanchez, but i invite you to do that as well. if you go back and look at the appeal. just the preliminary appeal, back on december fifth and that is going to cause the project owner he could potentially lose the builder because there is no work that could be done there, he has to go to a job to do work and might be available to

come back once this is hashed out. so i really imp lore you to look at the merits and i appreciate the concern of looking at every nook and cranny. there is somewhere to meet before they can shanghai and hold hostage a property like this and cause significant money and delays, attorneys fees and architectural designs and time from their schedule. thank you. >> counselor, last week we had the question, who were you or where was the project in terms of its progress? i believe that the answer was everything has been done for the garage and most of the interior work. >> the excavation for the garage, yes. that was an issue that was

brought up, that is not being addressed by this permit and that has been done, and what else is being held up, then? other than the roof deck? >> there is required work to be done on the front stair landing, replacement of the window and that is really a problem, until we can get the permits cleared up we can't order the windows and for every week that we delay on ordering the windows it is about a month delay because of the lag time from the manufacturer and also additional permits that we need to apply for that we talked about last week that some of which we were given some permission to let the building execute the permits while the appeal is pending, but really the job means that some of these issues have to be addressed and approved before we can go on that work.

>> mr. sanchez. new. planning department. just to confirm the points, i did meet the architect this morning at ten and we reviewed the plan that they developed at the time that i asked where the plans were for the hearing tonight. which would just deal specifically with the roof deck and so, after that meeting, the architect did develop the plans that deal only with the permit at hand that deals with the roof deck and the concerns that are raised by the appellant and i can put it on the overhead and i basically just shading the property that there would be no other scope of work and it is like this on the facade there is no window work and what they had done to become

code complying, they had an increase which would not be allowed above the height limit. so they reduced that down and have a full, open railing now, there is a small pit at the back which is fire rated because there is a fire pit there on the roof. and so, but, this is within the height limit, so that would be acceptable at that point on the property. so the only issue now is with the notification and in regards to the issues about allowing them to come in for the work with the windows and the stairs, and i believe that was very clear that the board made that very clear last week that dbi was to be allowed to process the permits with that scope of work that would deal with the window replacement in-kind and the stairs and i don't think that there is anything preventing the property owner from submitting it at this time. but it is really now just comes down to the roof deck and this permit.

and i am available for any questions. >> two items. >> one is that the building department has responded on what they felt was adequate documentation to reflect their permit. we asked you to. review what was being provided to you do have an opinion as to the ad adequatecy? >> they do appear adequate in showing the proposed conditions and existing conditions for the work at hand. i think that the building inspector was reviewing is the consolidated set which i... >> did you not receive? >> the architect brought it in, but i had limited time and i wanted to get to the issue at hand which is not the consolidated permit because that is another permit that will be submitted at a later date and have a proper evaluation on it. but i wanted to see the plans for the roof deck that the board would be acting on

tonight and the idea was that the board could or had said that no revisions were submitted and this would not be submitted as a revision to the building department and my thought was that the board of appeals could adopt this as their revised plans for the building permit better on appeals part of the special conditions permit which would not be submitted to dbi, the board would have to take action on it tonight >> we brought that up last time as an incentive to them. i guess that the agreement fell apart. >> what you suggested earlier, if we were to deny or revoke this permit, they can't resubmit the same permit, the same scope. >> so it does say that you are bared for one year from resubmitting, however if the facts change that led to the denial then they can resubmit nthis case you would be denying it because the plans that are

on file as the issued permit, plans, are not code complying and so, they could solve that by submitting the revised plans tomorrow and then we could start. >> that would be a change? >> yes. >> anything further? >> we will take public comment. if there is anything to speak on this. >> i see none, and then we will move into rebuttal. miss barkly, you have three minutes. >> members of the board, as i mentioned before, what is before you is a permit that does not comply with the planning code because of the procedural issue. they are free to take this other plan that they consolidated this other plan to comply with the code and submit it to the building department and that can be processed quickly. my problem is that the other

part of this was provided to me. and as you remember, last time they were talking about submitting a permit and have all of the windows with the light kind. the plan that i got on that do not have all of the window like the kind so that it is one problem. so i, we need a set of plans, consolidated set of plans that is correct so that when they submit the rest of the separated pieces of permits, that they all coordinated and they are all alike. we went through a series of permits, to get us here, and that have problems, and all that we are asking for is that you deny this permit so that they can come up with one set of permits so that it actually can be done. and i have to also emphasize that there is an area on the landing of the staircase, the front steps going up that

encroach on to my client's property and so that has to be addressed also before that permit can be issued. >> mr. soriano? >> i promise not to take all of the rebuttal time because i am not fearing anything new. it is nothing that deal with the specific permit. i do want to answer a question that mr. fung had about why are we not moving forward if there were exceptions for us to go ahead and do that. the reason is that the existing permit that is being held up by this appeal, it requires replacement of the stucco work and so we need to be able to address the stucco work before the installation of the windows while we appreciate the exception that was made it has not allowed the work to proceed. it is causing the work stand still and financial damages to

the project owner. so just again, suggest that we have got revised plans that the city is calling compliant. and i think that we can address the notice issue the same way that we were going to address them if there was an agreement and i would ask the court to or the board to seriously put into the thought of not allowing the two paragraph statement to hold up this project beyond the three months that it has held up and cause the financial hardship to the project owner there will be additional permits and additional opportunities for the city and these neighbors to review and challenge anything that they think is in the permits. but right now, we have someone coming up here in just generally saying i don't like this, i am concerned about the survey, and these are not issues that justify continuing or denying this permit when we have gone through a great efforts to comply in good faith with all of the compliance issues that the city has put before us. >> thank you. >> thank you.

>> >> thank you, counselor. >> thank you. >> the bigger issue at the hearing last week was actually the jurisdiction. >> yes. >> the multiple jurisdiction requests, if you were having issues with the schedule why did you not just withdraw this permit and go to your next one which is the windows? >> why did we withdraw the permit? >> yeah. >> because they had notified any legitimate problem with the permit the only time that happens is when mr. sanchez doing his due diligence and raising things that they are latching on to. but showing up and preparing the brief and coming to the hearing trying to negotiate with them they did notify any problem with the permit so we had no reason to think that this permit could not be upheld. that is the honest answer. >> all right. >> thank you. >> thank you.

>> sure, i think that he is going to have a chance. >> mr. sanchez, rebuttal, i think that there is a question for you. >> mr. sanchez were you going to speak again. >> i don't have anything further to add. >> i would like to clarify that the permit that has been issued is for a non-code comply apartment roof. ; is that correct?? >> that is correct. it does not comply with the planning code. >> anything further mr. duffy? >> no. okay. >> so commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> so, i will just comment that i am not focused on anything other than the permit at issue which is clearly defective for multiple reasons. and that is the roof deck

expansion and for that reason, that reason, alone, i would move to deny the permit, or, you know, up hold the appeal, grant the appeal. but, i also just want to comment on these charges of delay on the part of the appellant. i think that they can be countered by the charges that they were serial permitting going on throughout the process that is intended to expedite using the process or circumvent the process and i think that the comments made regarding what we did at the last hearing was an effort to do something that i was not

super inclined to do which was to con to expedite this project. notwithstanding what i thought were improper self-help expediting serial permitting, i don't think that the argument that they are intending to delay can stand alone without the counter argument. also, while i recognize it might be frustrating to receive limited argument on the paper, i think that we are as a board entitled to have all of the arguments made at this hearing be considered and that is what we are doing. and that is what i am doing today. so for all of those reasons, i would feel inclined to grant the appeal. >> i feel that again, we almost don't have a choice because we have a permit that is essentially non-conforming on a

number of basis and i would definitely vote to up hold the appeal. >> i would also repeat what i said last week which was that we have heard almost nothing related to the scope, and what its impact is upon the neighbor for an appeal. what is it about these that they don't like? other than the fact that there were procedural errors? . you know it really seems like this process should have been a site permit process verses a see quental permitting that occurred and that is neither here or there. or suggests what should have been done. i would concur that i think that we need to grant the appeal. >> i also would agree with my fellow commissioners, although it is tough on the home owner or the permit holder to have these delays that are evidently

very costly. i agree with what our president said regarding that there was a bit of it appeared to be a bit of serial permitting there to expedite and to go around our city process. so, twha is happening now is just evening the court and i would also agree. >> so i will move to up hold the appeal? >> okay. >> okay. >> vice president lazarus, i wonder if you want to include in your motion, two things, the basis which i believe was stated because the permit is not code compliant. but also whether they would not be bared from reapplying for a year which would be the default because of the existing conditions that could be remedied. >> okay. >> to put that in my mind. >> okay. >> when you are ready. >> okay. >> we have a motion from the

vice president to grant this appeal which means to revoke this permit. and i believe two findings, were added, one that the permit is not code compliant and two, that the one-year bar does not apply. okay. >> on that motion, to revoke, the commissioner fung? >> aye. >> president hwang? >> aye. >> commissioner hurtado is ab accident. >> commissioner honda. >> aye. >> thank you. >> it is 4-0. this permit is revoked with those findings. thank you. >> okay. >> so the next items 6 a and 6 b shall be heard together rkts appeal number 12-121, and 12-165 to do with the property at 27 meda avenue, filed by

honyuk cheung and bik kwun lee. regarding the protesting the issue an anses on september 13, 2012 of a permit to alter a building and revision to bpa no 2012/08/13/71241, relocate the bathrooms at third floor and add new do you rememberers and skylight and reroofing and replace the window at third floor and front in-kind. and the other on december 6th, another permit to alter a building to comply with come paint number 201251821, and 201268284, the revision to the approved bpa, 201208137241, and 201208066584, shows the existing floor plans to reflect the existing condition and new windows at front and rear and rebuilt the existing rear deck and stair and remove the deck at rear of third floor and

remove the interior stair at ground floor and replace the fence and scupper at rain and water leader at rear infill open storage under existing second floor and hab ate area. you have 14 minutes. >> good evening, >> you can move it down >> thank you >> my name is jennifer chung, i am speaking on behalf of my parents who are in the podium for this appeal. because they don't really speak english. we have an appealed a number of permits on this construction as the contractor has not acted in good faith regarding the planning process and the neighbors. in our early appeal, we documented we did not pay attention to the work until we realized that the work

encroached to my parents' property and so we started to look into their work and then we found out that the contractor conducted work well beyond his original permits and notification, such as extended the full rear supporting wall further back to gain more space. and extended the back and relocate the rear stair and do a deck on the third floor, above the kitchen extension and also on the third floor, a change one window into two windows, and added an outside door. to access the newly built deck. they are doing the massive change and they built the new foundation which we have questioned what are the permits that are on file, it is actually permitted the way that they performed. they actually lowered down the ground, about nine inches. so we just want to make sure that it is even up to now, we

don't know whether the permits allow them to do this kind of work or not. and also, in response to neighbor's complaints we have several complaints, they were forced to apply permits before they were not having any permits to start their work. during the process, we found out that this made false plans, two sets of plans have a lot of existing conditions that they claim as existing which is their newly done work. that they tried to avoid the notification to the neighbors and also go along with the building codes. and they started the work out the notification to the neighbors. when they are doing the work along with my parents' property they teared down their fence without giving any notification or permission from us. they removed their gutter,

drains leaving trash in our backyard and build it an lawful additional over the property lines and that is why we filed the appeal regarding the permits that they were actually submitting on the file. during the appeal, they have a representative came to have a meeting with us and they promised to undo much of the permitted work and return the property back to the existing condition. however, that we still have numbers of issues that have not been really resolved until that when we see the permit application was submitted in november. which that is why we are here to appeal two permits. we believe that as of today, right before the appeal starts, we have come to