1980s on proposals for what is now 1380 greenwich. we are asking you tonight to revoke a recent permit for construction on 1380 greenwich because the property owner is not identified on the permit, the kept of planning did not review and approve the permit application and we believe the very largel elevated deck encroaches on our 1877 rear lot cottage. these issues are related to building inspection and planning. we have worked with those departments to withdraw those appeals on exhibit d indicates since last november when we were asked to

review a similar permit and we responded to the building department, the board of appeals and the planning department as well as the permit holder that the property owner was not indicated on the permit. in january, on the last day of the deal, we finally heard about a permit that was issued with the same error and we were left with no option of the appeal for that permit. we have not been successful yet in terms of resolving and withdrawing that appeal. on april 18 we heard from scott sanchez by e-mail. he apologized for taking so long to get back to you. i finally had a chance to review the case

and do not see any planning code issues with the project. he went on to explain why. i respect and accept that decision and i don't dispute him even though his view was inconsistent with what i understood and neighbors understood with the rear yard of 1380 greenwich. my comments tonight supplement our appeal brief whiched to be submitted on april 4. we feel this is relevant to your decision tonight. after the # 1969 plans were approved we signed an agreement with lombardy property that allowed them to build their retaining wall on our property. we applied for

the permit and realized the responsibility to maintain all those improvements as well as pay property tax on them. we don't understand why the property owner for 1380 greenwich wasn't on the permit since all of the building is on 1380 greenwich. mr. duffy and donly indicate to me that the property owner should be identified both on the appeal permit and last week i looked at the records that did not show the property owner agent and there was no form attached to the permit which i understood from matt from

building inspection the only way a property owner could not apply for the permit. he could designate someone else as his authorized agent. i spoke with kristin blake who is the property manager of the 1380 greenwich neighbors and i received an e-mail from her. i talked with her about our appellant brief. i received an e-mail on which i was copied that stated her board's position on the permit. it does not indicate to me that 1380 greenwich homeowner association is fit to designate and associated with the construction or the property taxes associated with it. finally regarding our view on the encroachment of the large

deck, it maybe more important to ask how three over the counter permits issued nearly two years after the project was approved could add a second floor, rear door that opens to an adjacent property, allow a deck to be built where the door opened to a backyard landscape where it did not exist and permit a construction of a much larger elevated deck without notification. we wonder why these issues weren't covered in 2011 when there was a rear yard use granted which many now say it was for this expansion of

the project. we do not believe our position is different. we supported from the proposal. we testified at everyone of the hearings up to the board of supervisors and we still support the project and it was approved. we would never have supported it if we knew about the extension to a rear yard that is not their property and which had conditions of use that we thought guaranteed it as open space forever. >> your time is up. you will have time on rebuttal, sir. >> okay, we can hear from the permit holder now. mr. bird well. >> good evening. my name is tom

bir well representing the property on lombardy. i appreciate the board taking the time to discuss the issues. over the past several years the property on lombardy has involved a record of compliance as we work with city compliance and neighbors and groups and we work with a plan that maximize the positive impacts in the surrounding areas. throughout the process we have attended hearings, a board of appeals hearing and board of supervisors prevailing at each. we were able to break ground on our project of january of 2012 and now six weeks from completion. we look

forward to resolving this project. i hope we continue to have a good working relationship with the appellant. we have contributed to a great deal of improvement of his property a wall system between the two properties that will benefit both parties as well as other improvements to the appellants property many of which bore no relationship to the construction at 1269 lombardy. these were agreed to as a gesture of goodwill from lombardy property company from the handling and the tenants. we have a strong relationship with local neighborhood groups, the board which offered unanimous support for the project as the removed the black -- blight which existed on the same stretch of lombardy

street. over the last five years we have worked with planning and building and making sure that our project conformed to all applicable regulations and procedures. in short, our project aims to bring family housing to the city in a time warehousing is needed and endorsed. we stand rare -- ready to correct any errors should they be identified. i'm joined tonight by our architect working on large commercial projects to residential homes and lpc representative dan who has assisted in drafting this appeal, our construction, our

landscape architect who has spent many hours navigating the permit process to make sure he come applied with all applicable codes. we ask that you revoke the appeal ocean -- on the grounds that it was issued on the wrong -- we feel it does not justify the revocation and we request the board to deny the appellant's appeal. as to the issue our architect can expand if necessary, after meeting with individuals at building and planning was the understanding that the permit should be applied for under the name of lombardy company. if this isn't correct we are prepared to stand by whatever is necessary. the permit should have been reviewed by planning, we

received confirming from scott in zoning that the deck does not violate the required rear yard provision of 1380 greenwich and therefore was not subject to review by planning. we wish to thank the board for taking the time to assist and resolving these issues and coming up next, chuck, wanted to add a few comments. >> my name is charles -- i'm with the design project. i have a couple of photos to show you. this is a very complex site, a steep sight. our project is 2 buildings front and back. we did obtain a variance for the rear building to conform with the development pattern that was established historically in this area. we were aware of the

easement but no work was planned for this area when we started the design effort at 1269 lombardy. in fact there is a block map that shows it a little bit more clearly. the two buildings that we designed t green right in here is the easiment area. this web line is very deep. even though it's the rear yard of 1380 combren itch, you can't get to it from 1380 greenwich. here is a picture of the red line that shows 1380 greenwich down here and the easement area above. this is how we started the project. the concrete retaining wall here is the end of the 1269 lombardy project. the easement area is up here. the idea to build an easement area came up during

construction. one of the retaining walls went onto our property. it seemed reasonable to improve that area. the easement existed. the best access to the site was 1269 and provided the opportunity to provide a second exit door that would be useful in an emergency. we applied to the backdoor, we did urge the owner to get permits for everything that was done. there was a clerical error. the landscape director could tell you about the design. i can answer more questions if you have them. >> good evening. my name is rob gonzalez, architect. license contractor. prior to commencing work on the project. i met with

individuals in an effort to ensure appropriate procedures were followed. in any of these steps were in error i respectively ask the board to help us resolve these issues quickly and accurately. i asked for assistance in filing the paperwork correctly. i spent over 30 hours in that buildingen insuring that i if you would out the proper work. >> your time is up for now. you will have time on rebuttal. from the departments mr. duffy and mr. sanchez. who would like to start? okay. mr. sanchez. >> thank you, scott sanchez. the plan was not routed for

review. however the review in material briefs based on what i saw it appears it did comply with the planning code. we did not review actual plans to confirm that. one of the issues that was raised was whether or not it violated the conditional uses of the project on greenwich and polk street. it was a p ud and conditions of approval. that issue has been raised about easement and building permits for the correct property or not and i would defer to the property building department to discuss issues on that. >> inspector duffy? >> good evening, commissioners. a few things about the permit

and the main thing about the permit is that it is under the wrong address. it should have been under 1380 greenwich street based on the property lines even shown on the plans. so, i would say that's the main thing that's wrong with it. the work shown on the plan shows the building code structural review, everything else. a new application is required for the correct address with the plans to show the full scope of work. i would ask for a plot plan on the new drawings. i'm not sure if it was on the original plan. it would have been flagged. it looks like the staff missed this. there is a sheet no. on the respondent's brief on no. 1 shows the property line, shows

both properties on the work is definitely showing on the 1380 greenwich property. the permit probably should bereaved by the planning department. it is exterior work. the main project at 126 lombardy is almost completed and received several inspections throughout the project and there are some issues outstanding and i'm sure this can be accomplished before final inspection. i think someone was saying to me that they just wanted to change the address or name on the permit ownership. it's not that simple. it needs to be a new application with the proper address. this happens all the time with permits, people with permits and people come and pull multiple permits. it doesn't usually happen on one job like this. if they did get missed it was an error and the permit is definitely under the

wrong address. i'm available for any questions. >> mr. duffy, the appellant's brief indicates the new deck is three feet or less. is that correct? >> yes. i think it's under 30 inches. the retaining wall is more than 30 feet that would require the permit. we see a lot of these landscape type projects and people spent a lot of money on landscape and think with 30 feet it doesn't require a permit, but it did require a permit. >> okay. >> is there any public comment on this item? please step

forward. >> my name is frank maro. i live at 1259 lombardy. i have lived there since 1959. they did indeed have all of these hearings and i attended all of them. the fact is that they never showed building a rear

door on the property line. they never showed building expanding on the property of 1380. it never came up until after the project was well under way and then they got these over the counter permits. the over the counter permit given to 1269 lombardy stated that it was to replace an existing wall and build a deck. and then the architect showed the wall but the wall he showed was actually right on the property line and what these fellows did was they built three more retaining walls and they raised the grade, how do i put this on here? using soil from the excavation at 1269, they raised the grade of the property some 8 feet and now they say, it's

when i'm going in my backyard and i'm going build a hill and put a deck on top of it and it's 3 feet or lesson a hill which is really the foundation of this deck. it should have gone to the planning commission to be reviewed. i disagree with what mr. sanchez said. the other thing he said was there is nothing wrong with it. these are what was required when 1380 was approved back in 1986. it's not the case. conditional approval for 1380 states the final landscaping plan shall be reviewed by the department and it should be covered with ground cover, not covered with a 300 square foot deck. they

are going to put tables and chairs and everything else on it. it doesn't conform. it should have as a minimum gone to the planning commission. also for all the excavation these folks that lived on the property. it should have been filed proof for management plan, for management practices in the state of california. it has changed the drainage on that slope and it's taken away the ground cover that was required and it's always affected the treason that property. it should have never happened without a full review of the planning commissioner. >> thank you. >> any other public comment? are you paid member of the staff associated with the project? >> just a contractor.

>> you are paid by the owner. you can speak at rebuttal. you have three minutes on the return of the rebuttal. >> listening to everything that i have heard since i spoke, i really don't have a rebuttal. however, i will use my time to make a couple comments. one is that with respect to tom burr well, i agree. we have worked as effectively as i think it is possible to have worked and we have both benefited enormously from that and it has helped our neighborhood in terms of what we believe is a very tasteful addition to the neighborhood. we were able to provide access

to them for the first year of construction. almost the only access they had. we were able to provide the water and electricity and helped worked with palisades on that district and for all of that i'm completely grateful. we did get benefits and we got benefits that related to the 1989 failure of a retaining wall where they just loaned money to the previous developers. we got some benefits from those walls and from the cottage which we are most concerned about, we got the chance and did the work on the permit to tie in the west side of our cottage and

provide a first solid foundation. we would have love to have done more but were unable to. we did as much as we could to make our property fit with as lovely as their property looks like. if all that has been said with this appeal, i would hate to see one individual penalized at all. that's rob gonzalez whom you didn't get a chance to hear from. i met him in november. i believe he was encouraged not to have much contact with me after that, but once i did make the appeal, i met him again and my initial impression that that guy is a hardworking straight forward honest ethical contractor who was only trying to do his best to build his

landscaping business was more than confirmed in my subsequent meetings with him. whether he should have been the guy who made all of the permit appeals is not mine to judge, but i hope he is not hurt as a result of the appeal. thank you. >> mr. burr well? >> i would like to comment on a few the -- of the items that rob mentioned. there is a two wall system that lombardy property company paid for. there was some other items including a replacement of the complete stairwell on his property and several other items that we paid for and gathering his support and in drafting the neighbor agreement and also in insurance matters

as well. a couple of comments that frank more oh one of the other neighbors mentioned. you saw the picture of the area. there was a retaining wall in place. he talked about bringing in all of this dirt and there wouldn't be any reason to bring in any dirt because ideally you wouldn't want it to be any higher. you would prefer it to be at the level of that retaining wall. the notion of bringing excavated dirt. it was cement. i will be happy to answer any questions. the items on the appeal are items related to the name on the permit. we had some clarity here and we are happy to correct that. rob talked about his process. if there is any type of way that we can do that efficiently, effectively and not waste

money, if there is a special, i have heard there is maybe a special condition permit that could be granted so that we can simply resubmit the new permits so they don't have the ability to be appealed because that can delay the project. i know that the other item on appeal was with regard to the motion about the rear yard open space. i believe we had confirmation from planning and building that this deck doesn't infringe on that and as mentioned from the beginning that we've always been open in talking about building, planning and making sure that we've been open about the things that we've been doing so that we do it correctly and do apologize about the name on the permit but we would like to correct that in the manner you see

fit. i have a few seconds left. >> my name is jason. principal at palisade builders. i want to state that we work very difficult with one of the toughest sites that i have worked on. thomas an owner put so much time with the neighbors and i think any mention that we have done something or tried to sqak something by is completely against the nature of the way we've approached this entire project. i have been upfront as much as possible. we've tried to go above the board on this and all the way through. >> thank you. anything further from the department?

>> thank you. scott from the planning department. i would like to thank the member of the public to bring up the landscaping issue. that does state the final landscaping plans by the department of planning and the unbuilt portion of the site shall be to establish ground cover which would help stabilize the slope, minimize erosion and require minimal maintenance which is the area in question. so it would seem to conflict with this provision, this condition of approval. i think staff received these conditions previously. i think there was an error in the document in our records and for some reason when it was scanned in it was scanned in with the odd numbers on page 12. it was not publically available until last week until i went