was conducted and the appellant filed a discretionary review permit on that application it's my understanding think the dr requester the materials he stated his opposition to the roof-deck and proposed elimination i quote the elimination felt roof-deck is for cold temperatures and because of noise and partying and fire pits that could further block light the planning commission concerned those arguments and took discretionary review they asked for the property line be secured to

provide privacy. >> what's the date. >> january 30th was 2013 i'm sorry. >> 12 and january 24th of analyzing was the dr holding and the building permit was subsequentially otherwise on july 8, 2013, that was a complaint a building inspector went out and the building permit was filed it was approved by our staff that reviewed it and the dr decision said it come forward and the proposed changes to the roof-deck didn'ty my new notification every change requires a revision but that didn't require a new notice and

this permit was issued on february 21st before this board. i did not see a 2010 permit on file i don't know what that is referenced to i don't see my reference on the tracking system. what could have been happened there's a preapplication meeting and at that time, they didn't show the roof-deck they put it on the neighborhood notification but again, i think any issue because the dr was filed specifically in regards to the roof-deck but the planning commission didn't take dr on this permit if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them >> the changes that were made between the final approved plans and the plans that were submitted in connection with the kwef you said those changes

didn't warrant a new notice. >> this changes on appeal today show movable planters. >> uh-huh. >> and they show the fire put the barbecue. >> and those are different from the prior plans and that's correct. >> do you have the plans before the commission at the time of the dr? and those show a roof-deck. >> a plan roof-deck not any of the amenity sought in the permit. >> i wanted to be sure from our prospective those appendixes to the roof those new amenity that got added they don't warrant another neighborhood review. >> that's correct. >> what's the basis for this

determination. >> the planning code 311 talks about the features that require notice and the movable planters the fire pit are not called out in the 311 for interpretations that require notice, in fact, their interpretations of the planning code is the exempt notice those are features in the third degree found in the planning code section 260 which deals with the exemptions from 0 height limit that includes features like furniture and . >> kitchen on the roof-deck. >> right that's not a notice. i have on the overhead things that were submitted at the time of the dr hearing. and so you can see it's a plan roof-deck no first year firs or roof-deck no notification was

required this is before you on appeal so it's a question of the boards discretion about it those elements are appropriate but again, it was approved by our department and no notice is required this was in compliance with the commissions dr position >> and the movable planters and the barbecues and the fire - >> i'll put on the overhead the plans on appeal. so didn't those are the features i see here the planter box which provide some element of privacy i believe that's the appellants property is the property here which is to the west.

and there's the set back there's the planters then the other elements here the barbecue the fire pit and seating >> and the bumper out didn't require any appendixes. >> that's correct. >> the permit holder has a document showing the stair going up like a little bit of a indistinct bump out for the barbecue area he use the timeframe 2012? is this the same set >> i don't see - let's see. so the location of the configuration of the stairs do appear to be the same on the permit that's on appeal as on the imprisonment permit that was

approved the 2012 permit >> you indicated that is for january 2013. >> correct. >> i'm curious if you know this is the same drawing he's referencing he indicated the date of 2012 i can't remember and so those plans were prepared in 2012 and the notice was conducted in 2012 but the dr hearing was in 2013. >> so it could be the same set. >> there's a revision date on those of 9, 1, 2012 and i think what may have changed they're calling out i'm put this - sorry those are the plans that i pulled from our discretionary review packet heard by commission i didn't on the set that was sent out for the 311 notice but you see here it's

clouded as a talking about the tempered railing around the roof-deck so i don't know if that's a clarification but it certainly shows the plans under the commission. >> all right. >> do you see that have often the plans are changed between the discretionary review hearing like the planning commission. >> it's not uncommon i mean it depends on what the changes are in this case maybe there was a solid firewall they changed to a glass firewall i don't know the reason maybe the project sponsor. >> but i'm talking about the various amenities do you see that. >> that certainly happens because those are features that otherwise are exempt from notice

so it could be someone decisions later on we like that or a new owner of the property or years later. >> we've had 3 they all a ass ask for jurisdiction. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. duffey. >> commissioners this permit as i see is a revision to the main building permit dated 20120514 to add the top at that particular time. and the furniture at the roof-deck so it seems to commend the dbi on the site of february 19, 2014, they got the plan checked. april 21st, 2014, and approved

and issued on the 21st of april, 2014 and dbi suspended the board of appeals request spend it on april 22nd, 2014. for historical knowledge that i have because i was involved in the back and forth of works continuing despite the suspension i was contacted by senior building inspector so it's one of my districts i took that upon myself to go down there i think the contractor notified me we had the notice of violation that goes with the board of appeals that of a friday morning so mr. daugherty i didn't had some paper on there that whatnot properly faelgdz it

looked like it had been framed he was concerned about woov issues there's the work some of the work might be left open so the appeals in june, i give him permission to continue to get the structure waterproofs he scheduled respond to come in open monday to do the paper building and water to basically one-half it we lauding loud that and following that work mr. thorp completed the work i got the e-mail and took another visit and spoke with the gentlemen the work is not completed in my opinion as permited. it is predator tidy but doesn't

have the counter tops on the work didn't continue despite the suspension i spoke with ms. goldstein when we think someone asks if they can work beyond the suspension so 38 they can continue the work i want to address that. on the deck permit as well on the project on the main project our district inspector has been out there the project has been established at various times from foundation up to now its almost completed this is a revision to the main permit we sometimes get not just one permit but see the revisions if it's structural or architecture like this one we ask the contractor to take care of that. so that's what they've done.

there were 6 complaints since 2013. and we have ability pretty sure all of them so we'll be taking action on those if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them >> was that originally a site permit? >> i would imagine it was, it doesn't actually say it like it normally does there's a change from sit to full permits. >> would you look that up.

>> i can look that up. >> and whether you have access to the site permits. >> i don't have them together e tonight. >> in our electronic media. >> no, we don't have ipods that good we'd like it to be but i'll check that if there's an agenda schedule maybe the project sponsor can answer that thank you. >> thank you. >> outlook public comment is not to be used by the co- appellants but anyone else that wants to speak on public comment can step forward. >> my name is michael i live

across the street but not forming part of the appellant group i was frankly never notified this excited the last form notice i received was in 2010 with respect to the original plan, which i put on the overhead. since then the property owners is consistently i would say not entirely represented what they were doing in their desirability and acted in some degree in a deceive manner it shows a flat hearing and at a public hearing the property owners explicitly said there was no roof-deck. and we took them at their word. the reason that's important is if i please step forward the may 2012 application was the

beginning of the process your ignoring an important part of the history so when the 2012 plans were provided and there was no public hearing there was nothing at the planning department that led us to building that anything had changed we were not notified about the january discretionary review i didn't learn about that until recently yet if you look at the 2012 plan the addition of the rooftop deck is a significant change in the exterior appearance of the building it's visual from across the street from people's homes and it violates the general plan for the city and sets a new precedent for having roof-decks visible from the streets and it raises the height of the building contrary to the application, in fact, the height of the building is 41 feet tall

in a zoning district there's no request for a zoning surveillance that doesn't count if they put plants in the planters i have no idea how tall those plants could grow so they could put 40 feet eucalyptus on there. with respect to the permits and what they did starting on this i won't rehash that. the fire pit and the gas lines and all that, however, i think is a significant issue essential if you're going to have flammable trees on the same deck. finally i'll say as a result there are a couple of other issues in the brief that need response they're not true first, the issue of privacy isn't about

lighting but people starring into my window >> your time is up. >> i have a question do you live you live across the street. >> yes. i'm a full time resident. >> you didn't receive notification on the discretionary review there was no relation on the north revision. >> is there any public comment. >> vice president members of the board i reside at the 727 bay street across the subject property i've lived there with my wife and daughter for the last 17 years hour house is a family resident all the

residences are owner occupied. i'm the president of the homeowners and i'm here speaking on behalf of the 8 single-family residences. the plans that we were made aware of where the ones that were in the 2010 invitation for, you know, review with the neighborhoods. those plans you can see before a roof did he know and the folks that attend the meeting actually said that the owners represented but there was no deck on the construction. they we believe 38 they know that due process has not been

followed we haven't received the notification and it effects the likelihood of many people around the neighborhood. we have experienced with disruption because there's a residence that almost two blocks away that didn't have the cooking facilities yet they hold parlts and we know have to live with that in the early morning hours. this is the bad persistence for the block. thank you, very much. >> thank you. is there any further public comment >> hi good evening. i'm amy.

i also live across the street from 740 bay street i want to emphasize several points because i feel like there's a little bit of misinformation i'd like to clarify. one important piece of information that i want to emphasize is that as various other neighbors mentioned there was a public hearing in 2010. the owner contractor assured us no roof-deck no notification whatsoever to neighbors across the street when in 2012 all of a sudden a roof-deck show up the significant change is to the exterior of the building no opportunity for. another issue is about the issue of privacy.

the retains that i live in directly across the street the roof-deck which didn't appear on the 2010 plans be which is the only time i had a chance to comment the roof-deck looks directly into the bedroom window it's a significant innovation of privacy because of the geotry another issue i want to emphasize the issue of cooking on the roof-deck. the property in question has a different deck it would cause the same concerns because the cooking is a floor down and kind of not in the right roof-deck ross the main issues. i feel that the notice to neighbors was not served properly and that's this is a significant change to the

exterior of the building not a proper process >> ma'am, they have windows on their building in the front don't they look into our bedroom window. >> the roof-deck is directly in line. >> your building is higher than. >> yes. >> okay. >> because of several levels the windows are not at the bedroom level it's just you specifically the roof-deck that's arresting our privacy issue. >> thank you is there any further public comment. >> hi i'm scott cramer i want to read you an excerpt of a not sent from a neighbor that lives on the 731 bay street across

from the property your message reached me where i'm settled at the moment the news about 740 bay street is a fire pit and a complete kitchen are there no zoning laws. it will be a monday hearing but i appreciate if you represent me the fire hazard is wisdom and a fire can be started they ignore the permits and continue construction after a stop work order signals a bad situation. patricia also owns properties in the meadow neighborhood so she's concerned neighbor that would like to be heard thank you >> is there any further public

comment. >> my name is a laurie reside at the 750 bay streetcar i have an accident and surgery so i've been in the house everyday. >> i'm sorry are you related to the appellant. >> no. >> just you live in the same building. >> in a different unit. >> i'm a tenant. >> i'm sorry. >> are you a tenant then you have an interest then. >> you're not allowed to speak under. >> we had our other tenants in unit one. >> if she's a tenant she's got to - i think that she could speak under public comment. >> go ahead sorry. >> even now the plans for the roof-deck are different than what they sent us on june 11th

because on june 11th when patrick the owner on bay street there was no mention or sightings of a fire pit. which is over there. i want to say is that i thought with the work stop stock brokerage shortage that no work was going to be done i personally respect to file the stoppage on behalf of the owners. this as we shouted this has no bump out. on april 14th. that's may have this year. i have to what >> (inaudible) and i'm sorry i'm not the deaf that's

april 14th this is may fifth. this one which is the completion of the bump out of the lighting is june 4th you see it's not that small but importantly they continue to do all the work and the inspectors came out a couple of times and rob called to say they're continuing the work and now it's completed they've done with with the bum out and doing that and on the plan all of a sudden we have a fire pit which we never had their going through the radar for the inspectors and getting away with a lot of this. this is a month and a half this is now june 4th and it's completely done they're going to continue to do this over and over again. i'm just, you know, you know -

>> what. >> they're getting away with everything they can. >> may i have those pictures. >> it's done it's finished. and clearly- >> i'm sorry. i'm reviewing your time is up thank you. anyone else want to take a look >> sure. thank you >> my question is maybe someone can explain to me. >> i'm sorry. >> okay. go ahead. >> how this work was being able to be continued by patrick duo thank you and the inspectors.

>> is there any further public comment okay. seeing none we'll have our rebuttals you have 3 minutes. >> so it's also a picture for the owners of the bay to claim there's no distinction of cooking on the roof and the full path of the widen vs. every neighborhood cooks in a ground level it's protected from the wind and it's silly for them to say there's no risk of fire when close proximity to the fires and other combustible materials. the remedy is to tear out the glass panels and the fixtures subsequent to the 2010 plan since all those structures were

put in after the roof back to its state we've been interested in participated in a new conversation for the roof-deck >> thank you. >> we'll hear from the gentleman. >> i'm for the respondent and the permit holder. as the planning department indicated that was a public hearing in 2013, the plans clearly showed the roof-deck i see no evidence the claim that can be seen interest the street is accurate according to the permit holder that's inaccurate and in addition to the privacy concerns brought by mr. duffey the glass enclosure approximately 3 feet high the plants i believe are intended to be instead of