gained. >> make a motion for a revote. >> for the record, commissioner hwang is changing her vote. 2-1 to continue. >> we have to do another vote. we need to call. >> what is the motion? commissioner garcia: motion to reconsider a previous motion. >> i will make that motion to reconsider a previous motion. >> on that motion to reconsider -- commisto reconsider the motion?

aye. president goh: no. commissioner garcia: aye. the vote is 3-1 to reconsider. the floor is open. commissioner garcia: i withdraw my motion to continue and i look for someone else to make a motion having to do with granting more not granting a rehearing. commissioner fung: i am going to move to deny the rehearing request. >> on that motion to deny the rehearing request from the appellant -- president goh: no.

commissioner garcia: no. commissioner hwang: aye. thank you. the vote is 2-2 to deny the request. four votes are needed to grant it. absent another motion, this request is denied. >> next case. >> we will move on, then. >> i am sorry. we will take a short break. , 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: the planning department approving the additional two feet? >> there is a possibility, but,

again, if it was in the required rear yard, it would not be required without a variance -- it would not be allowed without a variance. director goldstein: sir? >> good evening, commissioners, department of building inspection. i just want to clarify some information was provided. the permit was issued on june 16 for the new roof deck, and it was stated that they required it revised plan for the deck. an application was filed on august 25, and that was to correct the deck size. this had to do with an additional inspection, which is our foundation, and that was on

june 21, so i just wanted to correct the record. the revision has been filed, but i do not know for sure that it was the result of the correction notice -- if it was a result of the correction notice we issued. vice president garcia: what possibly were the goings on at dbi? you were noticed, and then maybe you or not? -- or not? -- were not? >> i have a copy of what was sent to the appellants. vice president garcia: to the appellants and the other neighbors earlier enumerated? >> i do not have that, but i do have a copy of the notice that was sent to 1838. vice president garcia: thank

you. director goldstein: is there any other public comment? seeing none, the matter is before you. commissioner fung: i think we should continue this case until some point where all of the facts are known. commissioner goh: the revision permits. commissioner fung: continuing, we still maintain jurisdiction over the jurisdiction request. commissioner goh: do you have a date, commissioner? commissioner fung: madam director? director goldstein: i am wondering if we want to hear from mr. sanchez or another? vice president garcia: before we keep going, and i am sorry, but perhaps we want to entertain this comment?

>> that letter was produced when we went down there. it is an enigma to me when they produced a document saying 1850 and a house on pine street received the notification, and we were not on the list. when i asked assertively why we are not on the list, they went back and printed it. but we did not receive any notification. if we did, we would not be here today. commissioner fung: we are saying you're going to get an opportunity for process. commissioner goh: we are saying that if we continue the request for jurisdiction and you appeal, the revision permits, that we are getting now, that would give us an opportunity to wrap them together -- the revision permit,

that we are getting now, that would give us an opportunity. this is why we are hanging onto your jurisdiction request. >> i am sorry. i am just not familiar with this. commissioner goh: we are not denying it. we will hold onto it. the question was the date, and director goldstein? director goldstein: how long before the revision permit would be issued and appealable? >> scott sanchez. i think in october, that would be acceptable, and the project sponsor would verify and do their measurement and show the correct plant, and building inspection -- and show the correct plan, and building inspection can work on it. the application in question here

to correct deck size and landscape. it does apply to this deck in question. that would be ideal. commissioner goh: october 5 is ok with him. commissioner fung: i move to continue this to october 5, unless you want to make a mission -- motion? commissioner hwang: my understanding was to allow the rest of this to move forward. am i correct that there will be no additional briefing? commissioner goh: an oral report. three minutes. director goldstein: mr. pacheco, if you are ready, could you call the roll, please? secretary pacheco: there is a motion from commissioner fung,

at no additional briefing allowed to allow for the revision permit to be issued and possibly appealed by the dobrows. on that motion, president goh, vice president garcia: , commissioner peterson is absent -- vice president garcia, commissioner peterson is absent, commissioner hwang. this item is continued. director goldstein: we will call our last item, the subject property at 1633-1649 haight street. august 17, 2011, the board voted to deny the appeal and upheld

the denial of the permit with a finding that the billboard does not comply with the planning conception planning code section -- does not comply with planning code section 604-h, the billboard to be replaced exactly in kind, exterior work only, not associated with any commercial space. >> thank you. good evening, commissioners, president goh. i asked for a re-hearing, and i will explain. at the end of the hearing, as we were arguing, presidents -- president goh asked whether or not this item was really about

604-h, and whether it is the owner of the sign, company, or the owner of the property who does the voluntary removal, that is very important, because if the owner of the sign structure voluntary removes it, that does not destroy the property owners' vested right to display advertising on the building. that is a constitutional right protected by the federal constitution and the state constitution, so the question is, what we were talking about, i think, president goh -- i believe you are an expert in appellate law. we are talking about interpretation of the statute. how is it being interpreted? what is meant by it? who is the owner? and the planning department position, in the brief, they said it is the owner of the

structure itself, the sign company. and when push came to shove about, well, what was the legislative intent, and they said they really have to defer, -- i would have to defer to the legislative intent, not answering the president's question. that does not tell me much about what the intent was. when the voters voted on it, what were they voting on? what was the intent? then i understand commissioner hwang, i am sorry if i missed pronounced it, in all that i have read, she did not say this to me, but in the brakes, it does not look like we have a lot of will room -- but in the breach -- briefs,