>> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? >> mr. duffy. >> i'm sorry, mr. duffy, would you like to say anything? [speaker not understood]. but, of course. he has a lot to say. >> you've woken me up. no, i don't really have too much to say. we did issue a notice of violation on november 14th of november 2012. we did receive a complaint that this work had been done. and we caught the building inspector wrote it up, two times penalty for $1,000 and value of work performed on the permit. someone came in and got a permit right after that and it was reproved by building code requirements. we would need a 42-inch guardrail. i saw some pictures of that earlier on on the overhead, 42

inches is the requirement for the guardrail on the deck. and i think it looked like it was 42 inches. i think the neighbor's reached a little higher. that's why they were easily jumping over from the other roof which they absolutely should not have been doing. that's a police department -- that's trespassing. we hate to hear those sort of complaints in the building department that workers are jumping across property lines and roofs. that's not good. so, i don't like to see that. but apart from that, it's a project that seems to me to meet building code and, so, any questions, i'm available. >> just to confirm, the 42 inches is measured from the permit owner's property? >> yes, the walking surface of the permit holder he's property. >> and there's no building code requirement on the other side? >> no, i was looking up the code there when i had time there and i don't -- it talks

in the code about fire walls and parapets being 30 inches, but in this case it would be 42 inches for a guardrail. they could build it 30 inches actually on a parapet and 12 inches of a rail. so -- >> what happens if the adjacent property that roof is higher than 42 inches? then it doesn't act as a firewall. >> code doesn't address that. the if says you have to have 30-inch parapetses to stop the fire jumping from the other property on your lowest point. that's the way i interpreted it anyway. so, but in this case it look high enough, to be honest with you. >> how often do you see this type of deck? >> that's the first time i've ever seen one. a very good idea actually. [multiple voices] >> yeah. i think the storage room, i'd call it an attic. not a storage room, which maybe it was an attic converted to

storage, but that's what attics are generally used for. so, and it's pretty good idea. it's like a dormer, except it's an open dormer, you know. so, if you want to, you can use it to the outside, that's sort of what it reminded me of without a roof on it. >> i have another question. if the appellant wanted to put a deck on her -- hypothetical. if the appellant wanted to put a roof on her deck, would that require any -- i guess it might be for planning. but is that something you've seen? >> a roof deck on the flat roof? >> yeah. >> you can do it absolutely. >> would there be any issue if the appellant wanted to do that with that type of structure on the neighboring house? >> they could apply for a permit for that. yeah, they'd probably have to structurally upgrade the roof to carry the load of the deck and they'd have to put up a

42-inch -- >> the issue with it being adjacent to another deck, which gives immediate access. when i saw the pictures, i actually was thinking that -- i got confused. i thought the appel apt's house had the open base and not the deck being built on the other one. ~ appellant's giving them access into someone's home. >> it would be, it would be a little crowded up there, you know what i mean? they could apply for a permit for that, but they'd have to provide fire protection to the other property as well. so, you know, and privacy definitely would -- the code doesn't really address that as much as we care about fire protection. and, you know, the planning department are involved in roof deckses, although they're not 311, i'll even speak to that. >> i don't need to get into it any further. thank you. >> okay, we can take public comment now. step forward, please.

good evening. my name is [speaker not understood]. i'm the former resident tenant of the illegal unit. i lived there for 10 years. this property was rent to me by the family, a very traditional family in the bernal heights neighborhood. and the family was disintegrated, the property was just left, basically me and the tenant that lived downstairs would take care of it. i never knew it was illegal. i knew when an anonymous -- somebody came and said this was illegal, you know. i consulted a lawyer and they said, what should i do? you have to sue your landlordses. i would never do that. ~ because these people rent

place for 10 years. as a landscaper and a person that lives in this attic apartment for 10 year, i always want a window to see san francisco bay. so, the window was my idea. i called the [speaker not understood] office and the day that i signed the papers with them, they were very happy, you know. you can make a window. unfortunately, they did not do anything moving by a very interesting feeling, you know, is moving by greed. so, that's what's happening now. [speaker not understood]. >> i didn't quite -- i signed the paper in the buyout that i shouldn't do anything. i don't have any interest in

bank street. i'm here to my neighbor that called me and sent me an e-mail. i do not even live in the country any more. i came here. i have many clients. i'm a landscaper. i'm a certified arborist. i planted trees in san francisco. i have two kids that went through college here. they still live here. i cannot afford to live in the city any more. >> thank you. next speaker, please. sir, if you want to speak, come up to the microphone. good evening, i know it's very late. so, i'll just be brief and to the point. my name is david lipp. i'm an artificial resident at 345 bank. i am engaged to ms. shipkowitz. >> i'm sorry, sir, you are not

entitled to speak on public comment. you can speak on rebuttal. you are considered affiliated with the appellant. is there any other member of the public who would like to speak? seeing none, we will start with rebuttal. ms. shipkowitz. a point that was not addressed by mr. sanchez was the -- that the d.r. process because of administrative errors related to the d.r. hearing where the commissioners never got a full packet from me. they got all the images except one, the for rent and for sale sign. my presentation was cut short by technical issues because i told i couldn't plug in my computer which turned out not to be the case. it seems sell i, but essentially i never got the full story.

>> we had a little problem earlier. exactly. i was worried. the investors knowingly misled the commissioners in that hearing. they were asked specifically by one of the commissioners whether my house had been used -- whether my roof had been used for installation. they overtly with the contractor said no. they are disclaiming those people are their contractors i find kind of unbelievable because it shows them building the deck and working on the roof. they also talked about the code, protect the the code and being scoped to calculations in advance, yet their deck has so many violationses it's very hard to believe. not to mention they yelled at me for a long time about forcing them to have hired an architect because i asked the city whether this was even legal. we tried to resolve this. we never reached this body, but there has been so much defaming

of character and [speaker not understood] of my integrity, some of them you heard tonight. they called many people involved and they talked about litigation issues and they [speaker not understood] the architect in question. everything was in the e-mail kaz complete transparent about her and being general about [speaker not understood]. it was very general, it was very obvious it was general. and after that suddenly she sent a note to the board executive director saying, i don't want to be a part of this. she also skated ~ cited she just talked to ritchie roth. threats go to neighbors and they were specific going in e-mails saying we're going to sue everybody involved. i have a copy if you want me to play because i don't have time with the voice mail where they're saying this. the demeanor has been completely hostile and uncooperative and unprofessional. [speaker not understood] they basically rejected it [speaker

not understood] saying things like, your client continues to bull i us with legal agreements. so, why did they ask? they said we never raised our right to sue. why did they want this agreement? if this body doesn't dictate the minor modifications being asked for or in closure, but if not, at least an access barrier and soundproofing, noise does go over to neighborses and for me personally it has the biggest effect because i lost my privacy, what i can do in my house has completely changed. people who live in the other house are going to feel the same way. please, i beg you to look at the way that planning addressed issues in terms of how they handled this permit. and ask the owners to do the right thing here by the neighbors. they're not going to be living there, we are. so, thank you. >> am i workman? ~ ms. workman?

[inaudible]. this is the letter that we actually got from [speaker not understood]. we have included e-mails from december 18th when we were outside the country when we got notified of the suspension of the permit. and the d.r. application actually cited enclosure of the deck as a [speaker not understood] remedy based on confrontation from an architect. when i contacted the architect and said, on what basis did you get the consultation? you didn't review our plans. she said who is [speaker not understood] was the question she asked me. the i said the laid you gave professional recommendation to. she said i never gave professional recommendation to anyone. we're not going to be hauled back into the country for another month and a half. once we come back mayor's office and a half later we find notification related to the building department and this entire process are actually

going to the old address because the assessor's office has not atedhe address. by the time we come through figuring out what notifications are being sent to us or the d.r. process, we've done everything to be building and code compliant. the neighbor has -- if she doubts us to be evil neighbors she never invited us once over your deck is creating noise come listen to the noise it's creating. we have letters we received in the packet we provided because we want to be good investors. if i really cared about the dollar, i would have closed the deck in december and would have been on my third [speaker not understood]. i really think it's baseless. standard living noises are given in san francisco. what we're doing is building in planning code compliant. if these are not going to be building and planning code compliant, i can under. we're fully upgrading the building. we've done everything we could

to improve the standards of construction as is. just a quick overview of the plan again, you'll see this is the deck. the port of san francisco, it's not [speaker not understood]. nobody hangs out on the deck all day long. and you'll see on the side what is considered storage space is master closets for both the bedrooms. so, really the living space of this in the bedroom probably here and here, and this is a common walkway, passage way. so, to just make assumptionses that somebody is going to be standing over here all the time or like given some of the neighbors let us say somebody is going to sit on their deck and smoke a cigarette and it's going to be a fire hazard, i don't know how to respond to that. i don't know of a code that prohibits people from smoking on their decks. but i'm happy to answer questions that you have for me. >> thank you. mr. sanchez? >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. just wanted to briefly address thish other you that was raised

about the discretionary review hearing. the week before material went to the planning commission staff did inform the appellant that they could submit additional information the following week. ~ the appellant responded i could not do so, i was otherwise tied up till wednesday which is when materials had to be to the department. the deadlines are also in the discretionary review application. staff made copies of all materials that had been submitted by the d-r requestor and submitted those to the commission. those go up on our website, the entire planning commission packet goes on our website the friday before the hearing. and the appellant would have had that time to review that if there are things that they warranted to add, they could have added that at the hearing. ~ wanted as stated. there were technical difficulties as we see tonight with the presentation, but those are beyond the control of the department. so, if there are any questions, thank you. >> i have a quick question.

before inspector duffy. i'm curious about the proposed alternatives that were presenteded as part of the appellant's suggestions. maybe i should wait until -- did you have more on rebuttal? okay, could you -- that's for you, right? what did you think as possible alternatives to what the permit currently allows? >> in regards to -- >> the shielding, i don't know what you call it, the half glass that would create more barrier -- >> it's not required by the building code. if they wanted to agree to something like that, it's okay with us. more than the code asks is okay, but it would be -- >> that wouldn't create any issues from your standpoint? >> building, no, maybe planning. i don't think there's any fire

protection required on the side there because it's the side of the roof. it's only property lines. >> it is at the property line. >> no, but the ones that go up on the side of the roof wouldn't be required because that's, that's -- >> no, the alternative being done is to raise the height -- create a barrier above the 42 inch parapet. >> you can do that. in answer to your question, if you want to make a firewall higher than 42 inches, you can do that. that would be okay. >> okay. >> if they want that. >> great. >> one thing i was going to say in rebuttal, i might as well say it that i'm up here now. i was wondering who did the work without the permit. was it these people or the previous owner? that's not clear to me. it doesn't really matter, but i just think that's, you know, when you go ahead and do this without a permit, it kind of

says something, you know. it's pretty daring, i suppose, but to open up your roof and just create a deck. okay, thank you. >> that leads me to my next -- >> the permit holder? >> they talked about the previous -- not getting the notice that they were out of the country. whenever we stop the job for work without a permit, we actually write the notice of violation and post it at the site and stop that work at that area. so, the contractors knew about it whether they didn't tell the owner of the property who was out of the country, that's not building department's problem. it does take the city assessor's office a little while to update its records in regards to owners whenever a property changes hands. so, the notice may have been posted to the previous owner, but by all means, the department of building inspection issued a stop work order, a written stop work order for that work that was done without a permit. >> that leads me to my next question. so, if they did this work without a permit and nov was

issued previously, there was a nonpermitted unit in the building. so, are there associated permits or permits associated with that in removing that and bringing the house into compliance? >> yes, i think that was a voluntary -- >> thank you, mr. san che, he's answering for you. ~ sanchez >> thank you, mr. duffy. >> thank you. commissioner [speaker not understood]? >> [inaudible]. i'm sorry the neighbors don't like each other. the issue, however, is really one of what is code com politev, ~ compliant, what is property rights. i don't see that this particular deck and the opening creates a

huge problem that we would revoke or rescind the permit. i'm afraid -- i'm not going in that direction. >> i don't know what to say. >> it feels like there were some hiccups along the way. but i agree if it's code compliant now, then i don't have an issue with it. >> commissioner, just as a reminder, this is the release of suspension request. so, it's an error or piece of discretion standard here. >> i'm sorry? >> the zoning administrator determination so the standard would be discretion. >> based on what i've heard, i think i would make a motion that we uphold the suspension -- the release of suspension

and find there was no abuse of discretionary error on the part of the zoning administrator. >> i, too, am leaning to that. i'm sorry that neighbors are not getting along here. the benefit here is that they're investors and you won't have to deal with them after. and then unfortunately after hearing both sides, i believe that the zoning administrator is correct in his decision and i am also -- >> that was a motion? >> >> [speaker not understood]. >> we have a motion from commissioner hurtado to uphold the zoning administrator's release of suspension request on the basis that he did not err or abuse his discretion. on that motion, commissioner fung? >> aye. >> commissioner [speaker not understood]? >> aye.

>> commissioner honda? >> aye. >> thank you. the vote is 5 to 0, the za's order is upheld. >> okay, thank you. so, commissioners, we can return to item number 9. i just want to [speaker not understood] might be parked in the underground garage, i believe it closes at midnight. >> okay. was there a resolution? no, there was not, but we would really like to negotiate an agreement. we've come up with new language for the use restrictions, but they wanted to put it on record tonight, but we really need to have our attorney look at it and bring it back to the homeowners. so, we'd really like to come back and negotiate an agreement and get a continuance. for next week. ~ >> yeah, i'd love to know how far apart you are because i'm inclined to make a ruling tonight. could you please -- whoever is representing the current holder. how far apart are you?

do you have a conceptual agreement? well, no. i think we have agreed to modification of the use restrictions and [speaker not understood] and they were comfortable with it. they said it was stronger than what they had written. so, i think we have agreement there. we've got already agreement with the acoustic plan because we're already doing number one, but number two, it's not our property and we simply cannot agree to anything having to do with property that does not -- >> are the parties in agreement on that? because they don't have any jurisdiction over another part of the property. the claim, i don't know if it's true or not, i don't care. i just want to make sure -- >> and then with the verification, we're already in compliance with number one and the second and third paragraph that should be worked out with master owners association. i think we should be able to agree to that, but it isn't something that we would agree to here tonight, but it is

definitely something that should be worked out through the moa. ~ and we really feel strongly, quite frankly this needs to be resolved tonight. >> understand that. >> may i say something? >> of course. >> the idea of these last two paragraphs, i mean, really the reason we put these in here are because, you know, they actually said, why don't you have this handled in the moa. well, i think you know historically we have a problem with it. and, so, the thing is [inaudible] said it, if something comes up, you can file another appeal. we don't want to do that. that's why we're asking the board to uphold the permit with the conditions. so, you know, if -- and to be enforced with a notice of special restrictions. i mean, this has been a problem for quite a while, so, it's really important to us that that's something that, you know, i mean, this is the second time we've been in front of you.

>> okay, all right. >> it's actually the fourth time. the last time was rent-free meetings. >> is this something that -- i know you want to do it tonight. you guys are resistant. one week? [inaudible]. >> two weeks? next month? >> next year? >> you know, i just wanted to say we were trying to negotiate this before the hearing and the communications broke down abruptly right after the permit holder's brief was submitted. oh, i have a response to that, i'm sorry. >> okay. i don't want to actually do that. sorry. okay. i think we'll go into deliberation here and make a decision about whether we're going to continue or make a decision.

comments, anyone? >> well, my comment is it doesn't seem as if there is going to be a resolution. given the permit holder -- is that right? refusal to continue it. so, that doesn't really leave us much of an alternative. my personal inclination is the conditions proposed by the appellant are not reasonable. i would not impose any of them. and, so, i would vote to uphold the permit. thank you. >> i'm in agreement with commissioner hurtado. >> we have a motion -- sorry. >> excuse me. but that wasn't the issue. they already agreed to have common language on the use restriction. they both agree on it, then -- >> they're not in agreement now. >> they said they were in agreement on the use restrictions. >> not on all that exist.

i think they have something -- >> we need a package agreement, otherwise there is no agreement. so, they have asked us to -- they have asked us to take a vote. so, i would move to uphold the permit, no new conditions. if you have a different motion, we can go that way, too. >> commissioner hurtado, do you want to state a basis for your motion? >> that it was properly issued and it was code compliant. >> okay. >> we have a motion from commissioner hurtado to uphold this permit as is with no new conditions and it's on the basis that it was properly issued and it is code compliant. on that motion to uphold, with that basis, commissioner fung? >> no. >> president hwang? >> aye. >> and vice president lazarus?

>> aye. >> commissioner honda? >> aye. >> thank you. the vote is 4 to 1, the permit is upheld as is, no new conditions on that basis. thank you. >> president hwang, there's no further business this evening. >> we're adjourned. [adjourned] test,

test, test, test, test, test, test, test okay i'd like to call this meeting to order. hello. good afternoon, everyone thank you so much for coming to disaster council but i did want to welcome a few new members we have today. so we have jean who's the