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 werenot complete enough for a future project that would have more detail to it. but three of the elevations, we have ur elevations of the building drawn, three of those were accurate even without it surveyed, y rate with the subject buildings, the fron 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 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 answer to your question. >> can i submit these to you. they are showing the board of appeals. >> it's in the 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 bmit a brief. we were a little perplexed of the intent of the appeal not having both sides. we haveunderstanding 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 ex 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 cause 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 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 cuwas 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 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 pon an initial review and based upon the building permit satisfied which may require us to reevaluate the situation. >> okay. >> maybe wethe 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 condions 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 a project and 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 the the

permit because we found it to ed to is xg and what building height. it going from 37-40 which still appeared to be okay under the ng was noted. a is the height change. we also knew ch wanted to make, partdwelling unit merger quired a planning commission commission hearing. i felt necessary for vision to the adamant that raised 3 feet. thought it would be best to take it that you under one permit. we should not have year later reducidwelling unit. we had suggested that we received revised plans that this in corporatreviewed that and founthere were other changes and e deck that had ene board back to its larger configioat the moved out and again when complaints that sowith the rmits. i did a site visit

and desue a contentious project. the t sponsor did not good relationship. i thought this could be corrected through a correction if they wanted in ll. then i found they were now violating what the board required the total been. i thought we were flexible in giving time for the project sponsor to disaying we ongive that to us. it's not what more than what th conditioned. we all active perits related to the project which es thstalthat's been fai appealable to this board the project they can come back and argue the merits of that suspension to you directly. the permit encr you, we weinformed that there matter i contacted the department of public works and not take action on the

permit until other issuto th corrected. i thought that would be somewhat of a tool to ons or move things was aware of this bu decided to approve the permit anyway. we respect that we boarof the chair until code compliant plans. i understand the frustration from the neighbors. they have plans ey had been working on those plans bu or two, the dwelling of the merger and expon. buttoned rk continues. >> thank >> mr. sanchez, wictruth>> d and ÷ct th tor y at the property at this moment. i know she's at the point to as >> thank you. >> mr. duffy, the revision the corrections, was that issued as a permit revision to your department and then routed to planning?

>> that's correct. yes. because it's see fohow many peoplethis item? anybody? jupublic w, haven't already, fill out a speaker cardand give it mr. pabe checo do you know if there is with in room captioning? it waslast week either. can you give them >> ddy. 2833, 37th and broadway street. i'm the pamela whitei have lived at years. i have known pamela as a child. she grew up in and i knew her parents and i know were y is i consider mela competent striving to build a home for herself and when talked about i am in full support t and dumbfoe seems have found. his house next there also for some time and so do his feel the nega pa should ay at think the house white

head has bought is very old, older than mine and ighborhood. way that you consider some ions and unseeming building sight does enhance the neighborhood. >> thank next speaker please. >> ú8 lie panot en cal hollow was a ir that sponsor wants to turn it home which makes it a single family home possiblysupervisors has juto the and it into single family my first use the sponsor failed dialogue with the neighbors. when that get upset and anxious and angry. soving pr their and oing to be r so i urge toat we are here foin plans, with other permits. any questions?

>> thank you. >> my moorehead. i live at 2715 fiis of ththhomes are -- by gel. we from each other there literally no backyard space. thanybody does when you are that cle one raises conce about what is going to actually be done. and how is it going to ght limit is going to be, how much of their light and airspace is going to be taken as a result of this project. that's problem in this neighborhood. we've had several homes make additions that destroy the light and airflow of the adjoining homes. that ms. white going to do and it understand it scope of the projechbalhe and save the guish and ti with thisank you. is u lq that

we in themselves supervisor farrell ended were ur en with the board of supervisors. we again request that you either revoke or suspend this permit because a per permit is a whether l has to pport honest transparent and accmaterial leaving the city e neighbors to siit's about we rcrules evenhandedly in all cases. that is one of the issues that we are very concerned about.the other that as city planning works through it and dbi works through it and we'll work through this and the issue of the height is serious and we have had a n is -- is survey or work on it. miss white head makes is on a sight survey of the property line. to

show thd the height of the building and the north stairs in the back. was an entirely different plan noticed that all these issues were snuck in. ms. white head is a professional at this. her professional career is remodeling houses. she's held to a higher standard than this for the first time. the to be her home, we don't know that. we know she's done other projects in the neighborhood and sold them. in fact a person should be held to a higher standard when they in the field. th mistake. this is purposeful and knowledgeably purposeful >> sir, curb cut was not known to you? >> no. the curb cut was never discussed with either supervisor farrell or with cawas in this plan after we agreed and

signehe fact. go ahead. these are the approved plans the board looked a there is a curb cut and there always has been a curb cat. -- cut. this is an example of being accused of being deceptive when the deposition is coming from the appellant. it's been the hardest thing for me to defend this project because of his on going twisting of facts. i also want to sanchez's understanding of what the board of appeals approved. there was a revision suggested to combine the units into a merger. the planning department communicated that would not be allowed under the addenda. so es of 2 2 units and door changes iechlt -- i

wanted to clear that up that we did not sneak this into the addenda for the merger . we how the two units.2 units. what mr. sanchez putting this forward is why we are making changes to the house. they are the owners and the project sponsor's desire to make changes if they are not conforming with the approved plans, that board approved. my question is there was a condition of no changes. again, e my prior older woman who just wanted a the new owner who came at the time of the appeal hearing wanted to make changes and was assured she at the interior. i just want to have it clear that the project sponsor can make changes to her property beyond what was approved by the board and the planning

department. >> the dwelling merger was never part of the appeal nor did we try to part that as part of it. the other thing i just wanted to say with this here, i know if you can underline on july 5th, irving zaretzky keeps saying he had no idea about the height. i saw this letter or may 3, 2013. he saw this on july 5, 2012. it clearly states 3 points of our house unbeknownst to us that he measured and he filed the date after he found out that our height was not correct. one thing i want to say is i have reached out and tried to talk to neighbors. i feel that irving doesn't even live on the block and he has somehow been very crafty at

eliminating. >> sorry your time is up. i have some questions. >> is the deck enlarged? >> no. it's not enlarged. the plans, the permit that we have i think was issued may 23, 2013, our deck, everything we have built and i wrote this to scott after because i think he's been away for a few months. i just wanted to remind them that we