appeal my client will bring for you, there is a roof deck included in the project. the roof deck is part of the common area of the building. it is our view that they did not have authority to file for a roof deck that is not part of the units, part of the building itself. that is something that would require authority of eight show a -- of the hoa. we ask that be brought before you and decided. >> what were the exact dates? >> she returned on the 23rd. there was a ticket. did we supply the airline ticket? >> i did not see that. >> i will check my files of the other side makes their argument, and i will have that for you. if i get a chance to answer that question, i would be happy to do that.

>> i would like to hear about the error on the part of the season. is it a lot number? >> if the permit required a permit application on behalf of the molding itself, there are two particular slot numbers a condominium is a post of, and there is a condominium area, and one member does not have the authorities to do work without the authority of the others, so permit should have been issued not just for one lot. i understand they are changing the scope of the work and suggesting they are not going to do that work, but that work is approved by the city and in our view should not have been approved based on the notice in this case. >> was there ever any question as to the area of the work was intended to be done? >> i think my client -- there

had been a negotiating between the owners. my client did not understand the permit holder was going to be filing a permit application for a deck where they did not have the authority to do that. the effect was not part of that particular lot the permit holder owns, so i think there was harm to my car -- to my client. we would be happy to bring that before you. >> good evening. i am appearing on behalf of the permit holder. he is also here in case there are any questions. also, of the permit holder and the contractor submitted declarations as part of the paper work and you have to be for you. i will summarize briefly the

arguments that were submitted, but this was a interest fictional request that it be denied, because there is -- this is a jurisdictional request that it be denied because there is nothing but that caused her to miss her deadline. we have provided as evidence in support of the opposition to this request copies of the homeowners' association covenants and restrictions. that shows this is not a common area, that they have the exclusive right to maintain and approve the deck, so it is a disingenuous argument about sympathy for the requester, but because there is no showing, all we have is an unsupported accusations of a permit holder somehow mitigated procedures to

get noticed. that argument must sail. that is not the standard. they have to show the city did something to inadvertently deprived her of the right of timely appeal. secondly, this arguments that the permit holder somehow manipulated things to prevent her right sales on a number of respects. first, the evidence that the request was submitted demonstrates that she informed mr. specter she would only be travelling until november 15. this permit period was open until november 28. at the same time, the evidence shows if she had employees and a personal assistants keeping her of to date on daily goings on, so it is presumable she had actual notice soon after the november 10 notice was sent to her dress -- to her address.

there is no excuse in the paper work that nothing can be done until december 6. what has been offered, and i think what president don'goh pid up on is the evidence is incomplete, and one could conclude it was intentionally done so. we do know that they have not met the standard of the sport for granting jurisdiction of request, and because of that, it has to be denied. only the request alone would allow entitlement to open up a permit period. >> is your client and the permit holder intending to modify the permanent? >> i do not think there is any intention to modify the permit. with any major renovation job, it is possible not everything

that had been initially pulled on the permits would be completed. some of that is due to the cost and delays that are unforeseen, sometimes called by neighbors and other incidents. if that is the case, that is something that will have to be corrected upon final inspection, but i do not think there is any great intention to modify the permit. you may interrupt me, but i do not believe that is the plan. if there is no other questions, i will step aside. and >> if you are going to speak, you need to come up to the podium. >> i am responding to the question about modification of the permit. >> my name is brian shepherd. i work for the contractor of the project, and there is an

intention by the owner and to do the rooftop because of the cost of doing the work, so that is going to be modified through an application to change the current permit. >> you have a business card? >> not on me. >> any other commissioner questions? ok, any departmental comments? >> good evening, commissioners. if they want to take the roof deck of the permit, they would file a revision permit, and that would be over the counter, but

that should be done before they start work if they know they are going to do it, and if someone wants to file a complaint, we would investigate it, but if anyone has further questions, i think a permit went through the fproper process, and i do see that on march 24, i do not know what happened until november 10. it looked like it was approved in someone's possession, and they came in almost eight months later, paid their fees, and garth of permits issued -- stock of permits issued. the permits are in the applicant's possession during the time, they have the right to come in whenever they want. it does seem a little longer than normal we would see someone

doing that. >> you describe the permit. it would cause a permit to be appealable? >> that provision permit is appealable, yes, but it is only to remove the work from the original scope. >> only that part of the permit would be repealed all, or the whole permit would be appealable it would only be for the removal of the roof deck, but the other work is still shown on the permit, except the roof deck with not be on it, because there is another permit to remove its. >> it would reset for the scope of the work. >> only on the scope of the revision permit.

rite aid do not want -- >> they do not want the roof deck. >> you mentioned that was a bit long. what do they normally see? >> people like to get it as quick as possible. a few days, a couple weeks. i am not sure why we are waiting so long. i did see someone was out of the country, but i do not know. there must be a reason why it took almost eight months to get a permit. i just want to point that out. >> i do not know if it is a question for you in planning, but if that is an error in, is that a fatal flaw? >> if something is going over a different property line, in condos we sometimes to get this problem.

we would look into that and see if the plans are drawn in correctly, and we would siphon for about region -- would cite them for that, so it could be a notice of violation, but it is just like going over property lines, so that would have to be fixed if found to be wrong, but i do not know how that was shown on the plans. if we received a complaint, we would look into that, and we do all the time. >> i am more concerned about whether or not it constitutes, because of that error, in proper notice? >> i suppose technically it would. i know there was a notice sent out.

that is a good question. >> thank you. >> thank you is there any public comment? seeing none. >> there is a question outstanding. he was going to look in his file. >> thank you for the opportunity to address the board. my client left the country on november 1. she returned on november 23. the reason for the eighth phase is she suffered a life- threatening medical problem in what ramallah while she was on a mission. that is why she was delayed. she was planning to return on november 15, but she was delayed by a eight days because of unforeseen events. >> if the monmouth -- if the modification permit is submitted, removing the deck, would that have any impact on

this request? >> it would obviously give my client a chance to file an appeal. i think what is important is that should have been done immediately when the permit holder became aware they were going to do that, and they have not done that, and they would be able to complete the entire project if the board does not step in. parks are rules issued -- >> the root issue is not -- >> is outstanding. >> assuming they seek a revision permits and that they removed the debt now as an issue, would that leave other issues? >> there would be. >> very briefly. the information is before you in the briefing, but in a

homeowners association agreement, he had the exclusive right to do things on the deck. this is a disingenuous argument about what is happening. after -- if he chooses to maintain the deck, it will show it is exclusive, so on the zoning, they might say this is a common air regard, and evidence has been submitted in a timely manner. he has equitable rights to about. >> thank you. >> do you stipulate to the fact that is an error? >> i dispute that. >> go over that for me. >> i dispute that is common area. i provided evidence that when it

was turned into condominiums, it was designated by the declarant but it is exclusive. >> the requester has raised this issue having to do with there being an error in description. >> i think this is the same issue are was responding to. it is the correct lot number. their argument is it is the wrong number, up because it should have been done as a common number. none of this is a surprise. they admitted the other owner has known about these plans all along. this is used to have leverage. >> you did not need to editorialize. >> i apologize. if there are no further questions, i will subnet. >> i did have questions.

what is the reason for the delay? >> project reassessment. this is an investment property, and there is constant back-and- forth between this is what you can do. now you have to price them and see how much they would cost. then you have to go to financials people who tell you cannot afford to do that. >> that is after you apply for the permit. by to tell you what is possible, and there were efforts to do this in a neighborly way to lessen the impact on the downstairs neighbor. good >> thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is yours. >> comments, commissioners? anything?

by the question -- >> the question is one we look at strongly with respect to jurisdiction, and i do not see that happening here. most of the issues that have been brought up our civil issues, and i do not see that as impacting my decision on whether jurisdiction should be allowed. >> this should not be definitive, because i am still on the fence about this. in the past when someone has the inability to respond to notice, regardless of whether it constitutes any error on the part of the city, and we have greater jurisdiction.

the fact that it has languished so lawong and when the requester happened to be out of town when notice was given is troubling. we do not know how we are going to deal with that, but i look forward to comments. >> i did not prepare chronology too quickly referred to. can someone tell me the dates the appeal was filed? i am also missing my summary. >> december. >> they were about eight days.

>> eight days after the deadline. gartne>> 28th was the end date. my inclination is more along the lines of the vice president garcia a. it is on that region -- it is odd that, given the efforts, this period seem to be longer than the norm for not getting going on the permit. that does seem to me that it leaves a question in my mind as to the equities of not hearing this appeal, so that is where my thinking right now is. >> i would agree with that. we have been fairly liberal in

these things. this is a situation where it is just a few days in a case where she obtained council, and there is an issue about the incorrect lot numbers. potentially that is an issue we do not maybe have announced information -- potentially that is an issue. we maybe do not have enough information. >> because of the long delay and that she was out of the country the permit was obtained over the holidays. >> if we could amend that to read at least part of the time she was out of the country. >> when the permit was issued she was out of the country. but when it was approved, it was eight months earlier. >> commissioners, i will

support that. i have made that same statement a number of times. >> on that motion, from the president to grant mr. restriction request. [calling votes] the vote is 4-0. jurisdiction is granted, and a new five-day appeal period is created under our rules, which is this coming monday. >> is monday holiday? >> tuesday. >> we will move on to 5b. this was issued on april 8,

2011. the appeal period ended and the request was received at the board office on december 12, 2011. the project is the construction of a single-family dwelling with 924 square feet of ground- floor area. we will start with the requestor. you have three minutes. >> a thank you and good evening. a little think you for your time this evening. -- thank you for your time this evening. i never thought i would be in this situation and have never gone through a process like this. the reason i am asking for this jurisdiction request is i had an agreement in advance with my neighbor on for 48 diamond as to how idec would be built in

the back of the building. i understood the impact of the building on my current home. we met several times and had several conversations during the winter of 2008, spring of 2009, spring of 2010 regarding the size and extent of the deck and the depths of the structure. and wanted to be proactive in handle this in a neighborly fashion up front. i agreed to support the project based on a mutual grievances that the set -- a good debt woulenabling me to have quiet enjoyment of that area of my house. on april 8, there was a building permits issued. there was an appeal and i provided a letter to demonstrate my intent in support of the agreement and because of

the mutual agreement we had as to how the deck would be built in the back of the property. on november 21 of this year, as i watched the building progress, i realize the building was not as we had agreed upon. i called my neighbor, she responded quickly and came to the site. we had a number of conversations. none of which would permit the situation. that agreement is what i based my support of this property on. i have pulled a permit to do some work on my property. that was withdrawn in 2009. well my neighbor might use it at reference, that is currently extraneous to the issue of an agreement on how this property was to be built. i continue to support that, the

building, not the way the rear is being built and impacting my quiet enjoyment, light, and air. i ask for the board to take a look at that and grant me a request for an appeal. >> you are not the requestor? >> i supported this. >> i wanted to be clear. thank you. >> thank you. good evening. i am representing the owners of 448 diamond. this is where we believe this request should not be granted. if i may interject, commissioner garcia, the dr was based on

demolition. she must demonstrate she could not file due to an inadvertent delays. she makes this claim nor is there any basis for such a claim. aside from the arm of fassi -- the findings, there is no underlying error in review, there is no procedural and justice, no change in the project. from that described in the nullification and presented before the planning commission. without proper arguments to support her position,

[unintelligible] this extension is not only smaller than the code allows but it is smaller than the extension originally supported in writing by the requestor. it was subsequently reduced in with to provide a five-foot side set back along the property line. it is 5 feet narrower than proposed. at 18 feet 8 inches above grade it is exactly the height depicted and dimensioned. her request is based on a purported misunderstanding of the proposed height of this pop out. she said this occurred despite numerous discussions and despite her own design for a similar project on your property. adjacent to the neighbors. both parties agreed to an accord that involved construction on each property that comprised a

rear main building at the 45% rear yard line. each property owner proposed an obstruction as permitted under section 136 c that extended beyond the wall. the pop out was to be one story high. the drawings showed both projects side by side. the abernathys are committed to being good neighbors. it is unreasonable to lower a code compliant staff supported commission approved and legally project. we are here to answer any questions we have -- you have and we have some graphics that will give you a better detailed

picture of the project. fo>> you are saying that the height of the deck has not changed? >> that is correct. i put a tape measure on it and it is built 18 feet 8 inches off grade. >> one of the photos that was provided shows the pop ballad -- pop out. is that where the deck will protrude from? >> it is on the roof of the pop out. commissioner fung: it is on the -- >> thsi iis is the property and the existing debt and drilling. --