according to building, there to protect the properties on which they sit. also there are new noise issues that have occurred since the deck was installed that didn't exist before. it means that noise will now be coming from above and from a living space to the rest of the community and the enjoyment of my property and the privacy of both properties here because this deck sits just above the bedroom. what i'm asking specifically is that this permit be either [speaker not understood] and they close the deck or that relatively simple modifications are requested, meaning required meaning they add barrier and access barrier that's at least two feet to make it slightly more difficult to get over this wall, hopefully retard atctionv barrier and tempered glass. and the soundproofing and installation of the walls which currently has none and they claim it does but it doesn't

seem to knock on the property. turn the picture around and suffer. also there are other issues like dutch gutters have not been installed and several issues related to roof damage. let's see if this works. i'm showing this to show how easy it is to get over this wall. these are the contractors using my roof without permission from two days. two days they've been using it many days although i asked them many times not to. it's extremely easy. i'm going to talk about liability while this is going on. investors have asserted that there is no liability issue here and it is simply an issue because property owners are not liable fortress passerses. in california that is not so clear. especially for children there is a heavy liability burden on property owners who are required to protect their properties related to attractive nuisances. you don't need to be liable to be sued. we asked the neighbors

therefore to. to invest in upgrading their properties so investors can maximize their properties. ~ profits. i'm running out of time. i have hired a noise consultant who has confirmed after construction these thing generally happen between barriers are bridged between two properties. and has made recommendations. the discrepancies that were overlooked, this permit is really misleading. there is no death, no plumbing, no electricity. [speaker not understood]. clearly planning knew this was a deck because they refer to it as a deck and this discrepancy should have been called out and [speaker not understood] investigation by the planning department before it was issued. >> you're going to have more time on rebuttal. so -- i have two more slide. i'll do that on rebuttal. i'll just leave it here.

>> we can hear from the permit holders now. [inaudible]. thank you for staying so late. my name is [speaker not understood]. i am an investor. [speaker not understood]. some unreasonable people. we bought this property last may. it was a distressed sale. it was an illegal unit. the illegal occupants of this unit is [speaker not understood]. he accepted $25,000 as move out

after extortion to of the previous owner who sold it out of distress to us. you can see there was illegal construction. there were two doors at the property when we bought the property which needed significant repaired to improve what the home would look like. as you can see right now, this is what the current home looks like. we've done significant improvements to the overall footprint of the property. we also built a deck which is going to be building and planning code compliant. here's a quick picture of what -- a representative asian of what the deck looks like. this is the flood floor of the house. as you can see it used to be previous storage area and we just removed the roof rafters from that storage area and we had great views and decided to capture those views and convert this indoor storage space into an outdoor deck. we could do that because we

were the highest house on this street and we were the only house that had a pitched roof. so, just a few [speaker not understood] and a great view, confine our existing space that doesn't require us to do a 351 notification. as you can see from my brief we put several permits and avouch russ revisions to those permits. this is part of the scope expansion. it's unlikely that i would do outdoor work illegally and indoor work legally. the common sense would have to do illegally work would do it the other way around. here is an image of what the deck looks like as you can see. i was going to show you another image of, you know, the [speaker not understood] to access. [speaker not understood]. they're not liable for when contractors, but we've already spoken to them that they weren't supposed to be doing that, but this is my husband and he's an avid [speaker not understood] standing over there. this could meet the height requirement and this is the standard house requirement set

up by the san francisco building code. so, if somebody could jump over this, they could jump over practically any deck or any balcony that is being built under the current code for building. i'm also going to address other matters related to -- i'm going to address matters related to access. if you can see over here, this is the applicant's roof and these are the neighboring roofs. access has always existed. you can see the neighbor, they have a railing there a they have access to the roof with staircase. the applicant has a permanent ladder attached to the stairway to her house. there is major complaint we created new access, but we're saying that just by the nature of how the properties are laid out and they have flat roofs and they're connected, access has always been there. and, so, i don't think that our

deck is creating any new access issues that she's referring to. this is a view of what the homes look like. they're all joined homes with all flat roofs. you can hop, skip and jump from house number 307 practically to 345. so, there's no access being created. we've got letters from neighbors that are living in house number 3 19, 3 25 that are included in the appellant's package citing noise. we stopped construction in december. the appellant has letters from former owners saying that there are new noise concerns and we don't have noise. she stopped our work. what basis is noise going to come? there is nobody living there. to make an accusation somebody is going to come and live in the future, [speaker not understood] building up to code that has been there four years is highly fallacious. i find it hard to believe how somebody living in what is for example house number 3 25 will

be able to really tell that the house is coming from 349 after trespassing house number 345, 347 and 34 1. i mean, it's just -- it's unbelievable for us to imagine that ~ somebody would make accusations like that. regarding matters with respect to fire and liability with fire, the construction is being done in compliance with the current planning and building code so there will be the one-hour fire rating required of the walls, et cetera. i know the garage currently you have fire rated blocks and [speaker not understood] construction, but under the existing permits and the existing inspections that have been covered under the permits we have been in compliance with the code. and when and if this project is allowed completion, we will be in compliance with the building and planning code. in wrap up, i'd like to say we underwent a very strict, you know, pre-planning process even prior to having a permit issued, a revised permit issued

for this. we had to take pictures of what the roof looked like for the planning folks at the building department and show them that we didn't have any unsightly views through either the light rail or well or through the skylights into the bedrooms or bathrooms or any of the living spaces. ~ lightwell so we've taken what was our private space within our own house and carved a deck out of it. we have not blocked ore view. we have not blocked her sunlight. we have not blocked her fresh air. we have not intruded on her personal space. we have not, you know, we don't have oversight into her private living spaces or have any shadow effects on her gardens or anything like that. this is our personal space that we carved out within the confines of our house and it's intended to meet building and planning code. it meets codes according to completed. [speaker not understood]. so, that's it. thank you very much. >> i do have a question.

sure, please. >> no, i mean, so, the appellant showed a videotape and you mentioned to us passing and not intruding on the appellant's personal. now, i see the videotape. are those your workers that are on her roof? i can't guarantee they are my workers. [speaker not understood]. as you would see in the appellant's letter, she also took a neighbor's -- she took a letter from an architect who was not hired by her and actually used that e-mail and misrepresented it and used it as a basis for filing a dr. we have e-mail communications presented to you in the rebuttal that we provided with gross misrepresentations. one of the representation i can mention is the roofing consultant that's being used. if you notice the roofing consultant you will read a different conclusion. if i tell you the fact, the roofing person who is mexican who i talked to who could not

produce a letter from a legal counsel by courtesy architect did, said he never went to the property in december. the appellant actually sent him e-mailed pictures and said, can you tell me in writing that the roof damage is caused by construction? and he said, no, the roof damage, i can't say that. so, then, she e-mailed and him and said was the roof damage caused by construction or was there other leaks in the property due to roof damage? and then he replies back, saying, yes, it is so. that e-mail is actually used as part of the package. now, i can read the same e-mail i'm telling you -- >> okay, thank you. there is gross misrepresentation going on in the packet being provided. >> mr. sanchez? >> good evening, commissioners. planning department. the specific property is located in rh-1 zoning district and bernal heights zoning district. can confirm that in march of

last year there was a d-b-i notice of violation for an illegal unit. building permit was sought on may 10th to remove the illegal unit. there was another permit, i think, for work to change siding. then there was a subsequent permit in september that did more interior work. and november there was a complaint and on november 8 and the notice of violation from the permit building inspection on the 11th about the deck that is in question here. they sought a permit on november 29th to legalize that deck. it was reviewed and approved by the planning department in error on december 4th. it was brought to my attention and we suspended it the same day. and we did this because the dbm was not properly notified. so, we performed a dbm notification on december 11. it was a 10 day notice. the project does not otherwise require notification under the

planning code. it is completely code compliant. there is a 10 day bbn notice. the discretionary review was filed on january 10th and just because we did allow additional time for the appellant to file their discretionary review, if there was an issue getting access to plans forgetting exactly why it was now, i guess i question the appellant's ar i'm somehow the department was unfair in treating them in this matter when we did suspend the permit the same day when this matter was brought to our attention. we performed the bbn, provided extended time line to file the dr, dr was filed, heard by the planning commission on seventh. usevly the planning commission shows not to take discretionary review, did not find there were exceptional or extraordinary circumstances in this case that warranted any changes to the project. after that i reelissed the suspension which does provide the appellant the a ability to appeal that decision. ~ they could have also appealed the issuance of the building

permit back in december, but we suspended it and allow it had to go through the d.r. process. they're before you with the release of the suspension. i would agree this is not the ideal way of handling a bbn. ideally these things are caught at the information counter. so, this was something missed by staff, but we think we have adequately addressed and gave them due process and having a discretionary review and hearing here. we respectfully request that you deny the appeal and find that there are no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances here and any matter that would require any revisions to the permit. so, with that, i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? >> mr. duffy. >> i'm sorry, mr. duffy, would you like to say anything? [speaker not understood]. but, of course. he has a lot to say.

>> you've woken me up. no, i don't really have too much to say. we did issue a notice of violation on november 14th of november 2012. we did receive a complaint that this work had been done. and we caught the building inspector wrote it up, two times penalty for $1,000 and value of work performed on the permit. someone came in and got a permit right after that and it was reproved by building code requirements. we would need a 42-inch guardrail. i saw some pictures of that earlier on on the overhead, 42 inches is the requirement for the guardrail on the deck. and i think it looked like it was 42 inches. i think the neighbor's reached a little higher. that's why they were easily jumping over from the other roof which they absolutely should not have been doing.

that's a police department -- that's trespassing. we hate to hear those sort of complaints in the building department that workers are jumping across property lines and roofs. that's not good. so, i don't like to see that. but apart from that, it's a project that seems to me to meet building code and, so, any questions, i'm available. >> just to confirm, the 42 inches is measured from the permit owner's property? >> yes, the walking surface of the permit holder he's property. >> and there's no building code requirement on the other side? >> no, i was looking up the code there when i had time there and i don't -- it talks in the code about fire walls and parapets being 30 inches, but in this case it would be 42 inches for a guardrail. they could build it 30 inches actually on a parapet and 12 inches of a rail. so -- >> what happens if the adjacent

property that roof is higher than 42 inches? then it doesn't act as a firewall. >> code doesn't address that. the if says you have to have 30-inch parapetses to stop the fire jumping from the other property on your lowest point. that's the way i interpreted it anyway. so, but in this case it look high enough, to be honest with you. >> how often do you see this type of deck? >> that's the first time i've ever seen one. a very good idea actually. [multiple voices] >> yeah. i think the storage room, i'd call it an attic. not a storage room, which maybe it was an attic converted to storage, but that's what attics are generally used for. so, and it's pretty good idea. it's like a dormer, except it's an open dormer, you know. so, if you want to, you can use it to the outside, that's sort of what it reminded me of without a roof on it.

>> i have another question. if the appellant wanted to put a deck on her -- hypothetical. if the appellant wanted to put a roof on her deck, would that require any -- i guess it might be for planning. but is that something you've seen? >> a roof deck on the flat roof? >> yeah. >> you can do it absolutely. >> would there be any issue if the appellant wanted to do that with that type of structure on the neighboring house? >> they could apply for a permit for that. yeah, they'd probably have to structurally upgrade the roof to carry the load of the deck and they'd have to put up a 42-inch -- >> the issue with it being adjacent to another deck, which gives immediate access. when i saw the pictures, i actually was thinking that -- i got confused. i thought the appel apt's house

had the open base and not the deck being built on the other one. ~ appellant's giving them access into someone's home. >> it would be, it would be a little crowded up there, you know what i mean? they could apply for a permit for that, but they'd have to provide fire protection to the other property as well. so, you know, and privacy definitely would -- the code doesn't really address that as much as we care about fire protection. and, you know, the planning department are involved in roof deckses, although they're not 311, i'll even speak to that. >> i don't need to get into it any further. thank you. >> okay, we can take public comment now. step forward, please. good evening. my name is [speaker not understood]. i'm the former resident tenant of the illegal unit.

i lived there for 10 years. this property was rent to me by the family, a very traditional family in the bernal heights neighborhood. and the family was disintegrated, the property was just left, basically me and the tenant that lived downstairs would take care of it. i never knew it was illegal. i knew when an anonymous -- somebody came and said this was illegal, you know. i consulted a lawyer and they said, what should i do? you have to sue your landlordses. i would never do that. ~ because these people rent me a place for 10 years. as a landscaper and a person that lives in this attic apartment for 10 year, i always want a window to see san francisco bay. so, the window was my idea.

i called the [speaker not understood] office and the day that i signed the papers with them, they were very happy, you know. you can make a window. unfortunately, they did not do anything moving by a very interesting feeling, you know, is moving by greed. so, that's what's happening now. [speaker not understood]. >> i didn't quite -- i signed the paper in the buyout that i shouldn't do anything. i don't have any interest in bank street. i'm here to my neighbor that called me and sent me an e-mail. i do not even live in the country any more. i came here.

i have many clients. i'm a landscaper. i'm a certified arborist. i planted trees in san francisco. i have two kids that went through college here. they still live here. i cannot afford to live in the city any more. >> thank you. next speaker, please. sir, if you want to speak, come up to the microphone. good evening, i know it's very late. so, i'll just be brief and to the point. my name is david lipp. i'm an artificial resident at 345 bank. i am engaged to ms. shipkowitz. >> i'm sorry, sir, you are not entitled to speak on public comment. you can speak on rebuttal. you are considered affiliated with the appellant. is there any other member of the public who would like to speak? seeing none, we will start with rebuttal. ms. shipkowitz.

a point that was not addressed by mr. sanchez was the -- that the d.r. process because of administrative errors related to the d.r. hearing where the commissioners never got a full packet from me. they got all the images except one, the for rent and for sale sign. my presentation was cut short by technical issues because i told i couldn't plug in my computer which turned out not to be the case. it seems sell i, but essentially i never got the full story. >> we had a little problem earlier. exactly. i was worried. the investors knowingly misled the commissioners in that hearing. they were asked specifically by one of the commissioners whether my house had been used

-- whether my roof had been used for installation. they overtly with the contractor said no. they are disclaiming those people are their contractors i find kind of unbelievable because it shows them building the deck and working on the roof. they also talked about the code, protect the the code and being scoped to calculations in advance, yet their deck has so many violationses it's very hard to believe. not to mention they yelled at me for a long time about forcing them to have hired an architect because i asked the city whether this was even legal. we tried to resolve this. we never reached this body, but there has been so much defaming of character and [speaker not understood] of my integrity, some of them you heard tonight. they called many people involved and they talked about litigation issues and they [speaker not understood] the architect in question. everything was in the e-mail kaz complete transparent about her and being general about [speaker not understood]. it was very general, it was

very obvious it was general. and after that suddenly she sent a note to the board executive director saying, i don't want to be a part of this. she also skated ~ cited she just talked to ritchie roth. threats go to neighbors and they were specific going in e-mails saying we're going to sue everybody involved. i have a copy if you want me to play because i don't have time with the voice mail where they're saying this. the demeanor has been completely hostile and uncooperative and unprofessional. [speaker not understood] they basically rejected it [speaker not understood] saying things like, your client continues to bull i us with legal agreements. so, why did they ask? they said we never raised our right to sue. why did they want this agreement? if this body doesn't dictate the minor modifications being asked for or in closure, but if

not, at least an access barrier and soundproofing, noise does go over to neighborses and for me personally it has the biggest effect because i lost my privacy, what i can do in my house has completely changed. people who live in the other house are going to feel the same way. please, i beg you to look at the way that planning addressed issues in terms of how they handled this permit. and ask the owners to do the right thing here by the neighbors. they're not going to be living there, we are. so, thank you. >> am i workman? ~ ms. workman? [inaudible]. this is the letter that we actually got from [speaker not understood]. we have included e-mails from december 18th when we were

outside the country when we got notified of the suspension of the permit. and the d.r. application actually cited enclosure of the deck as a [speaker not understood] remedy based on confrontation from an architect. when i contacted the architect and said, on what basis did you get the consultation? you didn't review our plans. she said who is [speaker not understood] was the question she asked me. the i said the laid you gave professional recommendation to. she said i never gave professional recommendation to anyone. we're not going to be hauled back into the country for another month and a half. once we come back mayor's office and a half later we find notification related to the building department and this entire process are actually going to the old address because the assessor's office has not even updated the address. by the time we come through figuring out what notifications are being sent to us or the d.r. process, we've done everything to be building and code compliant. the neighbor has -- if she

doubts us to be evil neighbors she never invited us once over your deck is creating noise come listen to the noise it's creating. we have letters we received in the packet we provided because we want to be good investors. if i really cared about the dollar, i would have closed the deck in december and would have been on my third [speaker not understood]. i really think it's baseless. standard living noises are given in san francisco. what we're doing is building in planning code compliant. if these are not going to be building and planning code compliant, i can under. we're fully upgrading the building. we've done everything we could to improve the standards of construction as is. just a quick overview of the plan again, you'll see this is the deck. the port of san francisco, it's not [speaker not understood]. nobody hangs out on the deck all day long. and you'll see on the side what is considered storage space is

master closets for both the bedrooms. so, really the living space of this in the bedroom probably here and here, and this is a common walkway, passage way. so, to just make assumptionses that somebody is going to be standing over here all the time or like given some of the neighbors let us say somebody is going to sit on their deck and smoke a cigarette and it's going to be a fire hazard, i don't know how to respond to that. i don't know of a code that prohibits people from smoking on their decks. but i'm happy to answer questions that you have for me. >> thank you. mr. sanchez? >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. just wanted to briefly address thish other you that was raised about the discretionary review hearing. the week before material went to the planning commission staff did inform the appellant that they could submit additional information the following week. ~ the appellant responded i could not do so, i was otherwise tied up till wednesday which is when materials had to be to the department.

the deadlines are also in the discretionary review application. staff made copies of all materials that had been submitted by the d-r requestor and submitted those to the commission. those go up on our website, the entire planning commission packet goes on our website the friday before the hearing. and the appellant would have had that time to review that if there are things that they warranted to add, they could have added that at the hearing. ~ wanted as stated. there were technical difficulties as we see tonight with the presentation, but those are beyond the control of the department. so, if there are any questions, thank you. >> i have a quick question. before inspector duffy. i'm curious about the proposed alternatives that were presenteded as part of the appellant's suggestions. maybe i should wait until -- did you have more on rebuttal?