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 be taken as a result of this project. that's been a huge problem in this neighborhood. we've had several homes make additions that destroy the light and airflow of the adjoining homes. that is the great concern. i think what happens here is ms. white head needs clarity in what she's going to do and do it quickly so everybody understand exactly the limits and the scope of the project is going to be. once that happens, i think the neighborhood will support her and allow her to get on with the project, but it's very important this be done quickly to save her time and save the neighbors the anguish and time of dealing with this project. thank you.

>> thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> mr. zaretzky you have 3 minutes of rebuttal. >> i think the issue is very clear to us and that is that the plans that you approve, were in themselves wrong. after the negotiation that supervisor farrell ended and they were supposed to submit the plans, they snuck into features which were never discussed. the other one was the curb cut. in each stage of the game, what characterizes this whole enterprise is deposition. -- deception and

we are going to take this up with the board of supervisors. we again request that you either revoke or suspend this permit because a permit is a permit is a permit whether it's decide on technical reasons or any other reasons, it is still a permit and it has to relate to its mother permit. the relationship here is one of fraud. therefore, i strongly urge you to support the neighborhood and support honest and integrity because the board, your work is supposed to be transparent and accountable. you cannot have material leaving the city of the neighbors to simply fiction. it's about time that we enforce our rules evenhandedly in all cases. that is one of the issues that we are very concerned about. of course, the other issue is 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. the claims miss white head makes is on a sight survey of the property line. the plans were supposed to show that eliminated and the height of the building and the north stairs in the back. what we got was an entirely different plan that we hadn't 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 to a person buying this for the first time. the fact she states this is going 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 are a professional in the field. this is not a mistake. this is purposeful and knowledgeably purposeful to deceive the neighborhood. >> sir, you indicated the curb cut was not known to you? >> no. the curb cut was never discussed with either supervisor farrell or with catherine stephanie. it was never discussed. it was in this plan after we agreed and signed it and they were supposed to prepare revised plans. his idea of r -- revised plans did not ever include this in the agreement. for the last year she was asked to submit postage due

to 311 hearing to the city planning and she's refused to do it. she wanted to build the building and get the permit after the fact. >> thank you. >> we can hear rebuttal from the permit holder, ms. white head. >> 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 address mr.

sanchez's understanding of what the board of appeals approved. there was a revision suggested to combine the units into a dwelling unit merger. the planning department communicated that would not be allowed under the addenda. so what was allowed though was interior changes of reconfiguring the 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 did discuss about how to reconfigure 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 is board approved. my question is my understanding is not that those plans were frozen and there was a condition of no changes. again, historically, those plans were initiated with my prior client, the older woman who just wanted a minimal amount of work. the new owner who came at the time of the appeal hearing wanted to make changes and was assured she can make changes 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 t.