literally every property has decks looking down into thethers looking down into their backyard. harris is -- this one is no different. it was scrutinized several times, and a building inspector who measured its and confirmed it was 20 feet off the property line, so we took it to a much higher level, documented everything, and would love to comply to get them some more privacy in their backyard, but you are correct but the adjoining properties to look down into the backyard. >> thank you. .

>> just to clarify after the last hearing, we notice a discrepancy between the permits of the jurisdiction request subjects and the permit that is on appeal, and there is a discrepancy of the rear yard dimensions given. the rear yard would be required, and that is important, because of the death were to extend, and this roof deck were located above the portion in the required rearguard, it would have to have an open railing, so it is verified it does have a code compliant rear yard. i spoke to the reviewer, and we were satisfied both are code- complying and the scope of that having been exceeded.

i will be available for any questions. >> if we were to grant of jurisdiction, what greater scrutiny would is received? what is in the original permit that is not in the other permanent? >> i am not aware of any differences. the only reason the revision would not be required is if they were to reduce the scope and go back to the size of the originally approved deck. they may still require an improvement to document those changes, and i think another permit is going to be required no matter what. i do not think there is anything greater gains other than potentially delaying the

hearing dates from december. >> to graft jurisdiction on this would be redundant? >> it would appear so. >> you are indicating the size of this deck is code compliant? >> that is correct. >> a permit was succeeded, so as a matter of policy, should we make this easier for the permit holder? >> we do not like to seize those of permit exceeded any way -- do not like to see the scope of a permit exceeded in any way. i believe his is now nine times for the permit and six times its work exceed scope, we would not looking to the. >> in the same way this might be a redundant given the way

there is a jurisdiction curio -- there is a jurisdiction, assuming they could both be heard on the same day. >> yes. >> good evening, commissioners. i would like to correctsomethin. it is to terms -- two times if we issued violation. it is not always a notice of violation, so i would be available for any questions. >> how would you construct a deck like this and screen it? >> we see a lot of screaming on roof decks, but the only

requirement would be a 42-inch guard rail. the screening is not required by the building code. >> i imagined it is to protect neighbors properties. they have suggested it was deceitful on the part of the project sponsor to have put it behind a message screen. >> i would not see it as being deceitful. was it some kind of temporary screen bowman's -- of temporary screen? i would not call it deceitful. people like screens around roof decks for obvious reasons. >> is there any public comment

on this item up? seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> commissioners, we have heard our case. git is what we would normally looking for a jurisdiction request, and i would have thought it would be a reasonable compromise. going back to the jurisdiction request, the case still has not been made but there were issues of a non-due process to the appellants with respect to the permanence -- permits. >> i would agree, and i would think the requester still has some due process left and would be able sooto deal with what evr issues they have, so i would be

of a mind to not grant of jurisdiction. >> i would respectfully disagree. i know that renting the jurisdiction request might be redundant, but there are some factors that did not seem right to me. clearly it was not taken down for privacy. we have no evidence there was a notice of violation surrounded penalties for exceeding the scope of the permit, so i think in light of those circumstances, and there was really only zero month missing from the appeal -- only a month missing from the

appeal period, i would be very likely to grant it. >> i would make a motion to grant of jurisdiction request. >> if you could call roll please. >> on that motion from the president to grant of jurisdiction request. commissioner fung: no. president gohpeterson: aye. >> this jurisdiction request would be denied. but we will move on to item number five, which is appeal 11-018, jason bley verses the

zoning administrator. this is an appeal for the amended request for release of suspension addressed to the director which requests that the suspension delisted because the property it -- be lifted because the property owner has worked to clarify the proposed improvements under these permits. yet on march 23, the matter was continued to allow time for the parties to meet with zoning administrators to see if an agreement could be met and if they trade estimate of list for all permits associated with the property and -- if they could submit on the scope for all who

work permits associated with the property. >> i learned moments ago that they will present you with the various versions of the agreements that have gone back and forth between when we were here last and now, and the only commentary i would like to offer is that in spirit we have agreed upon a way in which the facade has been restored, and that is essentially falling in line with the hearings that have been here, which is to put off to a future single project that restoration separating the front work from interior work, haas hs been the goal for the decisions made here. where we are having some difficulty and where we need your assistance is in lifting the onus of responsibility to

oversee and and force this matter from jason as an individual, who has been conducting this of the matter of public interest. i do not have unlimited funds and which i can peirce 0 -- which i can pursue. each of these agreements has a way by which the future project, the problem is enforcement, so we need a first agreement to reagan won agreements the fault is it leaves the ability for this to be unilaterally and which drawn from the zoning

administrator, which is not satisfactory, because it is something that happens behind scenes and without input. while it has been related to me that i could appeal about, 12 years into that, i do not think a satisfactory resolution is to postpone this to a future date. some kind of realistic decision making should be agreed upon in the present. the other agreement is that it leaves the responsibility on jason bley as an individual. i do not have unlimited funds to go to court and so on, and as this is in public interest, we need your assistance in crafting some what of the unique resolution here, and i thank you very much, commissioners.

>> i have some questions. i did not follow what you were saying about how the unilateral withdrawal power in woodland. -- power would land. and >> the language was inserted with a notice of special restriction by the city, and the agreement essentially says if at some point, it gave the power to remove at and restrictions to the zoning administrator. it did not say to any other party, and to every other experts i consulted with, that is giving up the power of one individual, and while i could appeal it, it would be bringing

it back at a future date and leaving it where we left off. time is precious. life is short, and don't we have better things to do? >> basically, we have an agreement, and the question is how will it be recorded. >> how did the responsibility get taken from jason as an individual? >> if it is not in an nsr, what is your suggestion as to how it should be? >> one of them is an nsr, but it is a private nsr. the same language is there, but the problem is it puts it all on

me, so i've vigor and the way to flush out intention -- i figured a way to flesh out the agreement would be to add two sentences, that if i incurred in its legal fees on an attempt to undo this agreement, the other side would not pay his legal fees, so that is a simple way of saying, is this an agreement, or is it not, because i can tell you i do not want to sue anybody. this has been a long and drawn- out process, and by putting that in there, that says to people in tend to abide by this? >> we can hear from the permit holder in now. >> i am representing the sponsor.

may i present copies of the agreement? >> could you describe what it is? we need a motion, and we need to vote to accept it. iraq's we have enough copies for everybody. -- >> we have enough copies for everybody. >> i would move the except these documents. >> is there any public comment on this motion? we can call the roll up your good -- we can call the roll. >> on that motion to except this late in the middle -- this late submission. [calling votes] the vote is 4-0 to accept.

>> have the appellants and been given this? >> yes. >> the appellant also has a copy. should i give you a minutes to review it? >> why don't you go ahead? >> we have spoken by telephone, by e-mail, and met with the president at least four or five times, and i asked the appellant what it would take to compromise or moved forward. my suggestion is what is the

language presented by e-mail. with that memo, i accepted the language. he came back on july 22, and scott said the agreement is between two parties, so he wrote a different version. i also upset the version. and the appellant disagreed the city should be involved. there is nothing i can do. the third version is for anything that happens, and the government can sue the sponsor.

we cannot afford to have an open contract. >> did you ask if he would be willing to pay your attorneys' fees? >> i did not. i did not think it is fair for him to pay my attorneys' fees, so i do not think it is fair for me to pay his attorneys fees. i have three copies in front of you. the green start is the one i recommend your good estate has the same language as in los -- i recommend. it has the same language as in los angeles. >> we would not accept additional briefing, and now that we have voted to take a look at these, i am going to give us a five minute break, and we are going to read this, so i

am going to gavel out. >> we are resuming the october 26 meeting, and we are returning to item no. 5. how would you like to proceed? >> next, we would hear from him. >> mr. sanchez. likes thanks. -- >> thanks. there are two permits that are at issue. one was issued in may, and the other was issued in june. we issued a suspension letter, and it was brought to our attention they did not receive

the review, so we suspended the permits in july of 2010. we spent the following months working to review those permits but also to look good ways to make other modifications to improve the facades and come into compliance with the permit. they demonstrated an attempt to work once the department -- to work with the department. they filed of permits to deal with the stock issues. we released the suspension on january 10, 2011. there were language issues, so we've issued a revised letter on january 25. we had a hearing several months ago.

i must apologize, because i failed to provide that to the board, and i apologize. now i do have a partial printouts. when i region one thing i apologize is just we of the appellants to submit a list of outstanding issues he had. also, the permit holder worked to come to a resolution. what you see, i acknowledged at a time my authority and putting it into in the star -- in the nsr.

it was something we were trying to work with the parties. we had agreement of the language. >> i think you have 30 more seconds. >> he added an additional processor to run doom -- to undue. it was way beyond the scope, so we pared it down and had a private agreement. but was still not acceptable to the appellant your ego and -- to the appellant. i believe if the permit holders were able to record their private agreement with the

recorder's office, that is an appropriate documentation of the agreement they have. >> mr. sanchez. outside of special agreements applied to certain projects, the ultimate enforcement arm is the planning department. >> the issues would be the appropriate agency and retaining and enforcing that. >> given the code and the changes that applied to the presentation but also given your own internal procedures related

suit buildings over a certain region related to buildings of a certain age, scrutiny will -- also given your own internal procedures related to the building, scrutiny will come. >> how are we to feel assured that would have been given that it did not seem to happen earlier? >> it did happen. at issue are to permit, and we found they did not have a negative impact on the building. the issues are more of the maintenance of the building on related -- non-related to the permits. they have a permit to make some exterior changes, and that is pending review at our apartment, awaiting the resolution of this issue, but they have been

working to address outstanding building issues. they have filed permits to address fathat and are working o comply with the permit. >> setting aside the nsr, why would it not be kept to hpc? >> this is not a landmark building. it is not a historic district. goonot every his story building requires review by the historic preservation commission. goo>> we will move into public comment. can i see a show of hands of how

many people are interested in speaking on this item? the first speaker can step forward. whoever would like to speak first. >> i saw three hands. i see a lot of people. sometimes i make a decision about how much time public speakers can have, and all of a sudden, 25 people stand up, so raise your hands. three minutes. >> i am here to add my voice to my friend and colleague, who has been one of the few residents who has actually defended the character and history and architecture and cultural values of the buildings and the

history of chinatown. when he lived on a commercial street, it was the first interesting encounter i had with him, and when he started working on his building in which he lived in as a renter, i was very inspired by what he was doing. the bigger issue is we are often dependent on public agencies to recognize a building is a historic resources. in many cases, the shortage of staff, the lack of training and perhaps in staff, many in the building department intend to let what normally would have some scrutiny or a professional scrutiny allows projects to go

through the should not, and over time, we are led through these drawn-out surveyed said -- drawn out debates, compromises. many are brought out from what could have been a simple solution in the beginning, when company with proper credentials, attitudes, perspectives, looks at a project and says, this is adversely impacted, but they are very simple solutions. let us solve this now before we grant the permit, rather than years later having to take thousands of dollars and your time and our time to achieve something of should have been done earlr