don't have an agreement and therefore the whole case unravels back to the 311 notice originally in 2011. you can't have an agreement that the board of supervisors passes that isn't passed onto you as a basis for giving a permit. this permit of dpw is derivative. it cannot stand on its own. only has validity in relationship to the underlying permit which gives you the height of the building and the work to be done. >> thank you. >> i still at some point would like to leave the information. >> we may. we can hear from the permit holder now. before you start, i'm interested about the letter that was

requested to submit. you all requested to submit but was not allowed. can you tell me about that? >> i'm pat pam white. the project sponsor. the question again? >> the question was about the 2 pages of briefing that i rejected. basically the two page letter was concluded in the briefing and prepared by the permit holder. it was basically argument and exceeded the 12 pages. >> okay. >> it was not acceptable and if she wanted to present it tonight she can ask you to accept it. i believe mr. zaretzky prepared a response to it and it passed the deadline so he can ask you to submit it. >> that's okay. it's not necessary because we kind of did our share of what we put

together and steve did his and he kind of put everything together and brought it to cynthia. i think there is too much. it was in error altogether. >> okay. >> so, i'm sorry? >> starting your time. >> okay, thank you. one thing that i wanted to say is that i brought this set of plans that we signed that were stamped with the board of appeals and it shows the driveway. we are getting off the subject, i think. this is about a driveway encroachment and a curb cut and the existing planters that are there. this is a signed copy. i wonder could it be passed around. >> you can put it on the

overhead. >> okay it just shows that we were all in agreement. there is no -- i actually wasn't the owner of the property when these plans were drawn up. an 83-year-old woman was at the time. i inherited the plans. i had nothing to do with the plans previous. i actually bought the property with approved plans and an approved permit and an appeal that i didn't understand at the time because i had never been through before. so i guess my first question is that we've already gone through appeals and i have the driveway approved. there is no new news here and we did have an agreement. i'm trying to

recollect. i think i brought everything to the board of appeals and i remember trying to give the settlement agreement to, i forget who was there, and they said it was a private agreement and we could not accept this. so i'm new at this and i didn't know what was acceptable and what wasn't. but i was told it was a private agreement and not a party to public files. so i have the settlement agreement with me. and a couple things that the settlement agreement, that's what i have been told is a private agreement says. it says "any increase in the building height beyond maximum of 36 inches from it's current conditions which already includes tolerance by the building inspection and building code." it does not list heights of what it was,

it is. at the time i thought the building was 34-37. apparently there was a mathematical error on steve's part. however he did pick the building close on the three sides. there is no mischievousness going on. i have known her since i was four and i can't see her going to steve and saying we are trying to get away with something when there was no reason to. it's still beyond the height limit permit code and below the 40 -foot. i have the documents and i think i included this em in the file of the certification from my is -- surveyor. i have the

original copy if you would like to see that. in addition, it calls into question, i have the letter from martin ron. they say in july 5, 2012, their service crew measured and irving, the things he's trying to say about us, he knew more about my building than i did back in july of 2012. so, anyway. i just want to say this is about a driveway, an encroachment for a curb cut. it's not encroaching any further, it's actually less than it was now. i have pictures. so here is

the historic planters that have always been there and the trees. the curb cut is between the trees. the curb cut wouldn't exceed into the sidewalk in fact they did exceed less and the driveway starts after the planters that are there now. so there would be no impact on the sidewalk whatsoever for any passerby. and one of the things i want to say is that this whole thing, the notice that was sent out by the dpw, their letter clearly stated which i didn't include may 20th, it said, "please be adviced that your letter must consist of

practical improvement of this permit" that's what we are dealing with here. i don't believe the dpw found any engineering issues that are apparent to not letting this move forward and letting me have my driveway and curb cut. i will let steve speak from there. thank you. >> i'm steven, the architect for the building. i'm actually here because of the accusations of the neighbor that are unfounded. it's really an appeal for a curb cut and the encroachment on the sidewalk and i really only have to say to second what pam said that it's incomplete compliance with dpw, dpw reviewed it. they heard the hearing request by the appellant and they still approved it. there is no reason to deny it. the garage

is in place, approved, an appealed, upheld. whatever. a non-revocable feature of the building at this point. the building was raised 36 inches. i don't want to address these arguments of the appellant that are not jermaine to this appeal. there is nothing that could be the outcome of any future actions by city department that would stop this curb cut and driveway from being completed. >> your time is up. i have a quick question, if it's not about the height or the process but it's about a curb cut, what's the -- can you help me understand what you understand to be the real issue to be? or are you? >> i want to be completely honest with you. i have worked on this project for 2 years and trying to determine the motivations for the neighbor for that long. i do not know. >> okay. thank you.

>> i would like you to address the height issue so it's clear in my mind. i may not be relevant but helpful. >> i would be happy to. there's an error on the plans. it was not fraudulent or intent misrepresentation. the plans show the correction. i was working with this 83-year-old woman who lived there 55 years. after a fire on the property, all she wanted after many years of wanting it but unable to do it was a garage. that involved lifting the building. this is a historic building, in the eyes of the planning department. we lifted the building. my drawings were not complete enough for a future project that would have more detail to it. but three of the elevations, we have four elevations of the building

drawn, three of those were accurate even without it surveyed, they were relatively accurate with the subject buildings, the front elevation was off by 2 '10". it shows that much lower and raised 3 feet. the resulting number shown was 3 feet lower, but in fact, preservation was looking at the building there, not at the numbers. it was still well below the 44-foot height limit. that's the height issue. if it needs clarification. we are going back to the planning commission to address this question. >> the permit was for a 3-foot lift which we did do and that was approved. we did no more than 3 feet. that hasn't been contested other than by irving zaretzky. >> you are staying error was there was not an initial

survey conducted. >> yes. this actually helps the -- when we are doing especially in the front, the calculations rel relevant -- relative to the curb line, i failed to mention where the curb line was to the building. it's too low on the drawing relative to the curb. with a survey it showed the proper relationship of the curb to the house. and again since this is an existing historic house, it's been there 110 years. all i was most focused on was not having this woman to pay for a survey. that wasn't necessary, but we have done that now. that's a long answer to your question. >> can i submit these to you. they are showing the board of

appeals. >> it's in the record for prior appeal. we don't need it. >> thank you. okay. mr. kwaung? >> good evening, commissioners john kwaung from department of public works. i want to apologize to the board we did not submit a brief. we were a little perplexed of the intent of the appeal not having both sides. we have a better understanding of what's going on. the department of public works did issue an encroachment for the driveway. we reviewed upon the technical requirements as it relates to what is being proposed. this permit is tied to an existing permit, building permit no.

201103252839 and that we placed conditionally as a permit. in some ways, while this is independent this is also related to the building permit so it is in some ways attached. my understanding there are now questions from the building permit by colleagues at planning regarding validity or issuance related to that permit and given there are permits tied to it, depending on the outcome of the issuance of the building permit would result in either, would make the results of approval potentially moot. if it was modified, it would very well because this was a condition of the permit. it changes the conditions for us. >> but that permit is not before us? >> no, it's not. >> 2011? >> correct. but, again we are inherently linked in essence. if something happens to that

building permit, it changes the dynamics of the approval. >> so to the extent there is a modification, you would have to reanalyze the merits of the minor encroachment permit application? >> that would be absolutely correct. >> okay. >> >>commissioner fung: except it's only linked to the garage. there wouldn't be a curb cut if it was required. the linkage is that there is a garage. >> there is two parts. yes. for whatever reason for example, planning and building determined that there should not be any on-site parking then it would eliminate the driveway cut which would make this moot. alternatively there is a height which involves the clearance of a garage which requires us to go back and requires us to reevaluate

that ramp should it work. there is issues at this point based upon an initial review and based upon the building permit satisfied which may require us to reevaluate the situation. >> okay. >> maybe we should hear from the za. >> mr. sanchez? >> clarification? >> scott sanchez, if i may detail the chronology of this permit. the board heard this and taken a vote to grant an appeal, adopt revised plans, which included changed the sides of the building which are stairs and producing the rear of the deck of the building and some minors changes as well. that permit was subsequently issued as a

special conditions permit. during the addenda process for the permit application, this was a time that the new owner decided they wanted changes, under the addenda that are not appealable, they are just the structural details of submitting a project, they submitted revisions that would remove a dwelling unit from the building. we pointed this out that it is not allowed. under an addenda revise a project and requires a discretionary review and we referred them very clearly to have the plans match what was approved by the board of appeals to take some time to work with the project sponsor but ultimately the permit that was finally reviewed and approved under the addenda did believe very closely match what the board had approved. subsequent to that, we

received complaints as the construction commenced we received complaints that the height had exceeded 3 feet. i performed an unannounced visit and measured the building and was 36 inches which the planning commission took beyond this to emphasize the building be raised 36 inches. i felt over all the project was still in conformance and often when someone makes a complaint the project does not match plans, we suspend the permit. we did not suspend the permit because we found it to be okay. the neighbors continued to raise concerns and they hired their own is surveyors. and what was the building height. it was going from 37-40 which still

appeared to be okay under the planning code. this inconsistency was noted. a notice of correction was issued in june 2013 and in july of 2013 plans were submitted to document the height change. we also knew they had other changes they wanted to make, particularly the dwelling unit merger which required a planning commission commission hearing. i felt necessary for the revision to correct the height because the planning commission was so adamant that it be only raised 3 feet. thought it would be best to take it back. that you should do this under one permit. we should not have subsequently permitting here. then months later, a year later reducing a dwelling unit. we had suggested that we received revised plans that had all this in corporation about a week ago. we reviewed

that and found that there were other changes and the deck that had been reduced in size under the board of appeals decision was now back to its larger configuration. there was an addition at the side, a chimney had moved out and again, when we specifically receive complaints that something is not compliant with the codes, we suspend the permits. i did a site visit and determined there was none an issue here. it's a very contentious project. the neighbors and the project sponsor did not have a good relationship. i thought this could be corrected through a correction and if they wanted a merger of the dwelling they can do that as well. then i found they were now violating what the board required and making other changes. the changes maybe enough in total of that, the total

categorical exemption had not been. i thought we were flexible in giving time for the project sponsor to address these issues. we did, we were very clear in saying we wanted all the changes in one project and they certainly did give that to us. it's not what we were expecting. it's more than what this board had conditioned. so today we suspended all active permits related to the project which includes the permit to install the garage. we think that's been fair. the decision is appealable to this board within 15 days and i reminded the project sponsor with that. they can come back and argue the merits of that suspension to you directly. the permit encroachment that is before you, we were informed by mr. zaretzky that there would be a hearing on this matter and i

contacted the department of public works and requested they not take action on the permit until other issues related to the height are corrected. i thought that would be somewhat of a tool to get accurate plans from the project spons or and move things forward and get ahead on the planning commission. the hearing officer was aware of this but they decided to approve the permit anyway. we respect that decision but we also request the board continue this to the call of the chair until we get code compliant plans. i understand the frustration from the neighbors. they have plans and they had been working on those plans but it's not the ultimate go to. they have another project in mind which we have seen in the last week or two, the dwelling of the merger and other expansion. we would like to get that

buttoned down before any further work continues. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez, where are they with the construction? >> maybe they can address that. >> okay. >> i believe they are in that rough framing stage. there hasn't been any cover up. they are still at rough framing. >> building has been lifted? >> yes. the building has been lifted and the new foundation has been poured. >> there is not a life safety issue there? >> no. we discussed that this morning with mr. sanchez. we allow them to weatherproof this until this is approved

so they can move forward. that's what we want is just an accurate set of plans that's code compliant. so, there is i think some rough electrical and rough plumbing done. we have been back and forth on this project since last may, june, i was expecting normally when we get an error on the plans for height, it's typically a correction notice, go to planning, get a revision, come back with the proper height and move on with your project. this just took a lot longer and now we've reached the state today where planning has suspended at all permits and issued a notice of violation to stop work order in october and that got modified to let them do some electrical and plumbing work and there may have been some framing done at the property at this moment. i know she's been at the department a lot. i think at this point to get

this revision approved, they need to stop and get that done as soon as they can and keep everybody happy. >> thank you. >> mr. duffy, the revision or the corrections, was that issued as a permit revision to your department and then routed to planning? >> that's correct. yes. because it's a height issue. >> okay. may i see a show of hands for how many people plan to speak on this item? anybody? just a couple. we can take public comment now, whoever wants to step forward, please do. step forward, if you haven't already, fill out a speaker card and give it to mr. pacheco. that would be great. mr. pacheco, do you know if there is a problem with in room captioning? it wasn't there last week either. can you give them a call?

>> my name is teddy. i live at 2833, 37th and broadway street. i'm the neighbor of pamela white head. i have lived at that location for 49 years. i have known pamela white head as a child. she grew up in the neighborhood. and i knew her parents and i know also very well conrad because we were neighbors. all i want to say is that i consider pamela white head, a competent young woman who is striving to build a home for herself and when words are reached or talked about

neighbors, i am in full support of the project and dumbfounded about the problems that mr. zaretzky seems to have found. his house is next door. he has lived there also for some time and so do his parents whom i knew. i feel for the neighborhood, the spirit of the neighborhood, this whole thing is a very negative thing. i feel that pamela white head should be given some support and leeway to proceed as she's been at this for 3 years. we are proud owners there. we have our houses, my house is 110 years old and i think the house that pamela white head has bought is also very old, older than mine and is a beautiful addition to the neighborhood. it should remain that way and i fully request that you

consider some exemptions and let her proceed with the building because this unseeming building sight does enhance the neighborhood. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm nancy levens. i live around the corner. i'm not a party to this. i'm not a neighbor. but i have been on the cal hollow association board and familiar with the guidelines. this originally was a pair of flats, 2 units. it is the understanding that the sponsor wants to turn it into a home which makes it to a single family home possibly, not 2 units. i believe the board of supervisors has just put another bar to the removal

of units and turning it into single family homes. that's my first comment. second one, is this has become very contentious and the reason because the sponsor failed to have an honest dialogue with the neighbors. when that happens, people get upset and anxious and angry. so i support pulling back and having proper plans so the neighbors can then get their notification and come in and find out if it's going to be 2 units or something other than that. so i strongly urge you to suspend the garage encroachment which is what we are here for but is tied in with other plans, with other permits. any questions? >> thank you. next speaker,

please. >> my name is done moorehead. i live at 2715 fill bert street which is a project adjacent to the property in question. one of the problems this neighborhoods confronts is that all of the homes are -- by gel. we are 12 feet from each other there is literally no backyard space. the problem is anything that anybody does when you are that close to one another raises concerns. i think that's why this project has been so contentious it's because people are concerned about what is going to actually be done. and how is it going to be carried out, what the height limit is going to be, how much of their light and airspace is going to