downtown, we're not going to be able to see the bridge any more. we're sitting in our kitchen with some view of the sky. [chime] for us, it is about that sense of the trail. your decision has to be based on something different than emotion. we just want them held accountable. thank you. president peterson: next speaker. >> i want to use the previous picture as well for my presentation. right there. as you see, the rafters are being built. early on in this project, he was

a good kind of guy, he says, that is nice, i wish i could build a place. how high is it going to go? he said it will not block the view or anything, it would be fine. you can see the brown, this is his house for here. that is completely blocked. he presented all of us with a drawing that david alluded to, saying this is what i am going to build. it will not block any views. some neighbors were affected and didn't even live in the area. some of his friends are here right now ready to come up and swear anything. this has hurt a lot of people

because we were lied to directly. we showed them to build of the angle and how much light it is going to block, he looked at me and said, you have plenty of light coming in. don't worry about it. that was in it. like, go to hell. i don't think he even talks to freddie. he admitted under oath that he built without a permit. he turns to you folks and says, -- [chime] this is why we are angry. we don't want the city to look like it did in 1906. please uphold what the last body

demanded to have happened. >> my name is norman kinney, and i have been in the neighborhood for about 35 years. i just want to read this letter to you. they have our full support, there are plenty of homes on university, and there is one of the nicest. their home has added value to all of our homes. as neighbors, we see them from our backyard. tearing it down would leave the roof equipment exposed.

i would rather see it. they're trying to comply with the ruling there received. the neighbors seem to be continuously asking for more than what is actually necessary. there was a letter recently passed through our neighborhood. as a property owner, we appreciate positive changes and upgrades making it a nicer place to live for everyone. we just want it to be worked out on both sides. president peterson: is there any other public comment? if there are other people intending to speak, you can line up against the wall there. we appreciate it.

>> i have lived on university street for 44 years. it is a beautiful home. after reading everything that has been said and written, i am amazed that they think they can have such a control over the neighborhood. we were the first persons living on the 700 block in university in 1963 before any of the other homes were even built. we live in a very windy gulch. it doesn't make sense for comments about shadows and other fallacies. the directions -- the back of

the house faces the east. how is it possible to cast shadows? there are already existing obstructions to their view. not because [unintelligible] they have as much smaller lots than we do, half the size of ours. those of us that have larger lots have our right to build a deeper, and those that purchase much smaller lots. i am sure that they knew that when they purchased this particular home. the other guidelines are not just for them.

[chime] president peterson: is there any other public comment? >> my name is randy jones, and -- >> if you work for mr. herrera, you can't testify during public comment. >> but just wanted to answer questions. president peterson: you can use

the rebuttal time. is there any other public comment? seeing none, we will move into rebuttal time. you may use it anyway. we will start with the appellants. >> we will defer to mr. randy jones. >> i hope you ask the questions of me over the staff. i can explain it better than they can. they were required by the code. the way that is established is, you make a measurement, 3 feet up from that point, it goes up

30 inches. that is how you get to 42 inches. that number. secondly, he found a lot of things wrong. he called me in. so we could straighten it out. what we found is that there were a lot of dimensions and things wrong. what i did is i did a set of plans. i took his plans. every sheet he drew, i drew an addendum sheet, and it was fine. here is what is approved, and here is what is wrong with it. here is what is approved, and here is what to do. >> may i reclaim some of my time? thank you. look. i just looked at the building code. this section of the building code, 0.9 point to, it's a to cannot build a parapet less than 30 inches high, et -- says you

cannot build a parapet less than 30 inches high. so what they're doing is trying to get me to violate the code. by reducing it. the second thing, if you can see that, i drew an aero -- arrow. he has got a third story. he is blocking the so-called light and air, and nobody has called him on it. nobody is calling him out on it. he is calling us up on it. look at the difference. that is blocking the neighbor their light and air, and their view. it is part of being in america that there is a certain range that you can operate in, and i believe that this mr. herrera is

willing to compromise to restore some harmony to the neighborhood. it is getting crazy out there, so lastly, i would like to indicate, it was indicated to me that she did want to compromise. she would consider it after this argument was put together, so i am asking for a compromise, and we can all leave here with something. thank you so much. commissioner: what is mr. herrera willing to do? >> we are willing to cut the para pat-down -- cut the parapets down. we are going to cut them down. commissioner so it would be 21 inches? >> which will maintain.

commissioner: so that would be 21 inches. >> 21 inches down, which will maintain the integrity of the roof, and it will not cost us a new construction projects and a disabling problem for the entire neighborhood. i personally feel, looking at what i understood has happened here -- does anybody else have any questions? president peterson: i am sorry 3 your time has been up. scott sanchez. >> i am sorry note -- i am sorry. your time is up. mr. sanchez? >> scott sanchez. the appellate has proposed all

sorts of complex solutions that address the planning commission's decision, and the most recent submission by the appellant was measured at 21 inches in height, which contradicts what be was most recently submitted, which was 21 inches above the cricket, -- which contradicts what i believe was most recently submitted. we can go back to the clans -- plans that they submitted in march 2009 that satisfied the planning commission's requirements. this was only one or two months after the hearing. they submitted something that met the hearing. it seems to me that they understood the requirements. i do not think there is much room for discussion or analysis or interpretation for this decision because it is clear. i think the appellant has recognize the depth -- has recognized the -- that.

for some reason, they are not willing to go back. president peterson: high have a question. the plans submitted in march that were approved, those that start from the plate? >> in the approved plans, the overhead police, in the approved plans that the department approved in june, it was above the roof line, not 6 inches above the cricket, which was submitted later wrote in which caused this notice of violation to be issued. now, they are proposing something else. -- which was submitted later in which caused this notice of violation to be issued. president peterson: nothing was

there yet, right? >> this was an excess. vice president goh: so they approved the plans for that lower parapet, it was subsequent to that that they submitted revised plans that were higher, but those were submitted to v.b.i., and it was only because dei said -- they were submitted to dbi? >> that is correct. >> thank you. president peterson: do you have anything else? ok, so, commissioners, the matter is submitted.

commissioner hwang: this is clear. i would definitely denied the appeal. vice president goh: i would agree. to have this come back, it is difficult. however, i was looking forward to hearing about this from commissioner front note -- commissioner fung, so we will hold off. commissioner fung: do you want me to sound like a cricket? i did want to raise a few technical points to make sure that we are fully cognizant of what the implications are.

a korea it is defined as utilization of some type of material to create positive drainage, and it is usually set at different elevations. whereas, as was also mentioned by mr. kornfield, the other is a same size. this is where this provides the appropriate "-- . angle within the limits of its capabilities. but it took me a little while to figure out that this was the case. what happened is that they added all of the roof drains, and that is a long way to drape across. the roof framing -- a long way to drain across.

the gable. the problem is is if you go back into the actual definition of what either party said, the appellant wants to do, and first but indicated it wanted to do 6 inches above. therefore, their appeal was incorrect initially because they're drawing reflects something different. that problem also is exacerbated by the department,

because the department says it is 6 inches above the roof, then the length of drainage from one end of the other then gets a exacerbated, and it creates a problem, which is why they were saying they were going to reduce it to 21 inches, because they wanted a certain amount of parapet above. and so, that is what created this, but it has also created other problems, but i just want to verify that. and that is something that could have been solved a lot easier. the issue to me, when this first came before us, and i remember this, hoping i thought instead

of doing the 311, we would adjudicate it here. there was a certain amount of support. they extracted a couple of things. in the overturned the department. as the department knows, and no longer say that we went to adjudicate the 311 process here. they can do that at the commission. so we overturned the department. there was the one-hour, in relationship to the other. somehow, that all got changed. and certain other things changed. the volume of the overall structure changed, not a lot, up to 1 foot in a different direction.

it then went back to planning, who i thought was actually quite right on that. and this was the second go round. now, they're asking about the third go round, and i am not prepared. so i'm going to cupholder department. -- to uphold the department. commissioner garcia: i think this board had good intentions. i mean neighbors signed off on some things. and regretfully, they were trying to help out mr. herrera, and now, we have found out that

mr. badiner was wrong, that he did not have the authority. another person was wrong, i guess, because he did not overrule mr. badiner. mr. and mrs. berlinski on long -- lipsky all wrong. are wrong. -- are wrong. another is wrong. if i had been the council for the hererras, i would say, "we have made some serious errors. they cannot claim hardship

because it appears that these people can afford to do what planning is requiring them to do. they made a mistake, not planning, not mr. badiner, not the neighbors. they made a mistake. when everybody else is wrong, the idea that you're going to live next door to somebody and trash them when the code is on their side, i would not consider that to be a great way to try to get what you want. at any rate, it is probably obvious from a comment that i intend to vigorously uphold the planning department. president peterson: you hear about a lot of wrongs, and i do not know when they equate to a right. my only concern is the department coming up with this. i think this is going to leave this -- i am not an expert.

i wish to compromise from the -- a compromise from the hererras would have come earlier. and so, i will concur with my fellow commissioners, as well. commissioner hwang: i will move to uphold based on the findings. president peterson: thank you. mr. pacheco, could you call this, please?

>> on that motion, from commissioner hwang, commissioner fung, vice president goh, commissioner garcia, and president peterson. the vote is 5-0. the notice of penalty is upheld. >> president peterson, shall we call the last item? president peterson: how many people are here for the last item? >> if you are here for the last item, if you could raise your hand please? that would be item number 10. commissioner garcia: if you plan to speak. >>

president peterson: welcome back to the july 14, 2010, meeting of the board of appeals. mr. pacheco, can you read the next item? secretary pacheco: this is item number 10, william and laura olivo, protesting the issuance on april 22, 2010, to angelique king, a permit to alter a building with a second-floor addition including master suite with dec, living area, and death across the first floor. haute -- with decj, -- deck. president peterson: miss?

>> they will impact how we have our bedrooms. there was the section 311 mail- in from 2009. there was a blank wall with a single window. we had called the planning department and also went to the planning department in person. this was to address our concerns with the light, the lot, and the two bedrooms. we know what the effects of reduced light and air will be on the people living in those rooms. it will create a star, stale air environment. -- a dark environment. we were told at the time that the residential design team had already improved the plans. it was not until we hired a man

used consultant to review the plan and they contacted the staff planner that we filed a discretionary review. after this action, on november 12, 2009, the residential design team reconsidered. there is a letter dated november 3, 2009. this change in the requirement. as an afterthought. we are very concerned that we have taken these steps to have the residential design team carefully look at our proposal and address the issue that are also listed in the the residentl design guidelines. we feel that by changing the

requirements, the residential design team formally acknowledged that they completely ignored our concerns and that the proposed plans could severely impede the limited light and air access to those rooms. i have several drawings that will show the light for those veterans facing east and west. one of our questions is, why did the residential design team decide to change their opinion of the proposal to require this only after filing of d.r.? the residential design team indicated by the change of mind a requirement that light and air access needed to be protected. please consider our proposal of a side set back or an adequately shaped like well to allow