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 will provide a measure of privacy effective a

wall so proceedings other state line vision under the properties i've not heard anything to indicate there's no notice that anything that was constricted is non-compliant with the code thank you very much for your time >> could you recall - counselor. >> was this first put up as a printed in the record permit. >> what kind of lighting are you i don't see mississippi any specifics to the types of lighting there and a few give me one second i'll provide the answer to you.

>> so mr. doris thank you says it faces down over the doorway straight down at the deck and that's at the lower level. >> i'm sorry. >> what's the lighting up on the deck? and it's led. >> that's what i asked correct the binge out lighting and maybe mr. doris thank you can come up. >> i can't tell from this. >> good evening, commissioners the latin-american is led step lighting as directed done on the department of education deck not directed out in my direction. >> where are they located. >> in the firewall on the other side of the barbecue. >> their directed down not up

in my direction. >> thank you. >> any additional questions. >> no, thank you. mr. sanchez >> thank you scott sanchez planning department i don't see a permit from 2010 the first permit is from 2012 the neighborhood verification goes to owners and couldn't and provides 2011 plans based on the dr application in their dr application they clearly state their opposition is to the roof-deck i'll say during the 2013 dr they filed it in response to the dr notification based on the roof-deck had there been no roof doishg deck on the plans during the dr their won't

have westbound opposition. in regards to the other issues the roof-deck is set back 50 feet with regards to bay electricity its a fairly wide street in san francisco and 6 million hull owe traffic and approximately 70 feet wide to the buildings across the street it's significant in san francisco. and again yeah. i think the height issue that was raised the building is not above the height but this is not above the height limit is follows the grade that is an up stepping lot the deck is well within the height limit we don't have height limits on trees so they can plant a

redwood or anything allowed on the planning code i think those are the points this could have glutton the neighborhood notification without a roof-deck and proposed a roof-deck that won't have triggered many 311 requirement because under the planning code interpretations it's possible to build a roof-deck by the way, in and of itself it didn't require notification what triggers the notification is the stair penalty how did in this case they have a minimal penthouse that's on the plans as previously proposed so i'm available for any questions and who are the appellants the same ones >> yes. yes. >> same one. >> i'll note with regards to the dr notification that

notification goes to the abutting properties and the 5 properties across the street under the dr application it's the responsibility of the appellant to provide accurate notification for the dr hearing we assume the appellant 23450ik provided the materials to assure that this project was properly notified and the staff i checked the minutes are there were other speakers at the hearing i don't know what does they were on but there were more than half-dozen speakers. >> one of the speakers indicated they live across the street and didn't get any notice. >> that was what was stated but again, the mailed notice the dr goes to those buildings across the street. >> is that notice only to property owners? >> you want to double check i

think its owner and occupant. >> yes. i believe so. in addition there's a substantial notice we do a bright orange for the section 23 notice and the dr notice sits a thirty by 40 a substantial sizing size that notifies the community >> no one applied for a d b n. >> there were additionally no points of law of that building permit application it was not appealed to this board. >> okay. thank you. >> mr. duffey. >> commissioner just an answer commissioner fung's question about the site permit or a full

permit it's actually, it went through a process in the building department when planning was finished with it it changed to a full permit so it was parallel plan checked they paid extra for that it's a premium service the plans can be four or five sets of plans reviewed by departments at the same time to speed things up i see notes on the writing from a changed permit to a full permit and do you have a date for the sited permit. >> well, when it can be the planning department on january 29, 2013. >> and the full set; right?

and that would have been the site permit site the set that went through the dr. >> okay. >> right but the site permit do you have when it was originally submitted. >> oh, submitted. >> i assume the site permit came in first. >> that's correct. >> in may 15, 2012. >> so may 16 it seems to be may 14 i that's a typo with the 514 would have been the site permit but when it goes through planning they have the choice in the plan check i don't know fits it take advantage of it costs

more money and maybe people don't use it as much in this type of project our department in the last few years rather than put it in the plan check backlog with high-rise and everything else when it's a project of this size the department is pretty they have brought in stems to help to x at the time pet it it they've been through the appeals so, now it's time to move and we'll accommodate that. >> you know how long it takes planning to get through it's a place holder right. >> i don't say that i just said said it was a length i didn't process. >> thank you. >> i want to make one clarifying thing. >> no, no, no your time is up.

>> one last question mr. duffey or perhaps you didn't have it but perhaps planning has it the site planning set does it show a roof-deck. >> i'll answer that i imagine the site plan would have shown a roof-deck because it was the set approved by planning part of the dr so i'll let mr. sanchez answer that. >> scott sanchez planning staff the neighborhood notice was the roof-deck was on the dr requesters argument tare opposition to the roof-deck in the plans that the planning commission reviewed it definitely was i have the packet and can confirm that.

so you know it's 30i my assumption what staff approved also included the roof desk and subsequentially went to other agencies and converted to other issuance from last year >> commissioners the matter is submitted. >> well, i think we've been over the notice issue exhaustly i'm convinced that there was proper notice given the dr record and the testimony of mr. sanchez and i'm also not convinced there were any requirements there be notifications to the amenity that were added towards the end of the process according to the planning code as mr. sanchez

explained it's not required that many notice be given i don't see a basis to over turn this permit. >> i'm not sure i'm in agreement with that position. sir, i accept the irrational statement i made commissioner on the overall notice was probably very by the book and okay. where i disagree with that that is the addition of this roof-deck to me is fairly significant. it's additional living space and it's living space you can't control in terms of noise, odors and other things. and right i'm not sorry but i

think the zoning administrator knows the argument before those relief decks wind up to be additional living space that sometimes are abuse of and sometimes not. what happens in a number of cases that we've had the jurisdiction cases nobody finds out until it's under construction we had a prime case on union street they've also said was not part of their original but wound up to be a whole entire roof probability in the neighborhood of 35 hundred square feet with a multiple deck i found that hard to believe that wasn't anticipated from the beginning but in this instance i'm still of the opinion that

the roof-decks require much greater noticing in that additional living space and the controls environmental controls on it are next to nothing. >> you know, i appreciate the comments of the commissioner generally generously i think i heard the testimony of the public especially those who felt the particular impact and may not have gotten the notice of the 2012. plans that had the roof-decks but i think because the appellant in this case was aware did file a discretionary review hearing request i feel that's sufficient amount of notice who

could be involved exists. and i would be comfortable up holding the permit >> guess it's me. i agree with all my fellow commissioners comments but currently, the way the law is written i don't believe that the department that handles has record or abused their use i think that roof-decks do facilitate more space and noise can't be contained and it creates harmonic but yet the current code we have to go by says the amenities that were added wouldn't have required additional notification so i will vote to deny >> i make a motion.

>> i think our attorney needs to make a comment. >> yes. now that i know it will effect your reasoning it's not reasoning or the nova in this case. >> okay. thank you. >> i mean, if we were to find that the additional what is actually on the permit is problematic to the public i mean, we could without it being - my oh, okay. >> we could revoke the permit even though the work is been done but anyway, we do have the power and jurisdiction to remove the condition on permits on the various aspects. as drawn on the plans that were

actually approved with the sort of planter boxes that might prevent the privacy issues that were raised i feel again generously comfortable i'm going to move to deny the appeal on the grounds of the permit as code compliant >> thank you mr. pacheco. >> we have a motion from commissioner fung to uphold the permit on the basis it's code compliant. on that motion to uphold commissioner fung. no. commissioner hurtado >> president is absent commissioner honda. thank you. the vote is 3 to one this permit is upheld on that

basis thank you >> thank you. calling item number 9 next appeal melanie vs. the department of building inspection the property is at 2179, first avenue protesting this to john of an alternative permit and remove the encroachments along the plan and remove the wall a south of a quarter of inch to the violation. and this is on for hearing >> good evening. i'm carol i'm one of the appellants of the appeal. we are asking that the building permit granted to the gentleman be suspended or revoked because the permit didn't encompass the

encroachment and doesn't identify the problems. first, we building that the encroachment is one of a quarter inches not thee quarters of on inch which is the correction we have a boundary survey it shows a one and quarter inch encroachment. additionally the picture space between the two buildings there was a two inch space is gone it's been consumed your that looking at over 3 inches of encroachment. second there are other serious violations we have that were caused by the flying permit that are the elimination of the separation one way or the other wall and the fire separation ignoring property lines separation and building over the

property and nailing their wall to our wall and adding dead and live loads to our walls the new third store is too close to our chimney we're required to modify our home and the elevation plans were not submitted to the city it showed the jackson properties roof fixtures. we also obtain to the main contractor on this permit, i.e., design and construction inc. because the contractor didn't carry liability insurance and caused extensive water damage and damaged our roof. if all of the above issues are not addressed at the same time

this permit will have to be done again, a that's one of the reasons we're asking for this e rerevocation. we're current in litigation and we ail need to agree about a utilization issue if we're unable to resolve it we're going to ask the court for a correction. we don't want any further work to be done that may further dam our home and o we don't want the work to be done go through court order. in closing we ask that we are not asking you that or the san francisco dbi adjunct those issues but only to revoke this pending a she means to or a

court remediation plan we've provided you with a brief from our attorney. and i'd like to direct you to tabs d and h that reflect the encroachment. i'll pulled those out of tobacco h that is showing more than three quarters of on inch. so no that presidential pretty well depicts that but that shows you a better visible here's what the building looks like as they started the construction that's the corner of our home the left

is oured are siding i'm sorry. the unfinished property here to the right is the new construction. and our home is to the left with the siding. after they've conducted their work this is now what it looks like. we now have a concrete wall that comes over our property that was also part of the picture that i showed you earlier with my hand underneath the new construction. this depreciates our home and prevents us from building on our home we respectively ask you to look at the summaries in our

belief >> thank you any questions. >> one of the things i couldn't understand from our brief is you reference the original gap between the two buildings. >> correct yes. >> and you're saying they encroached over the air gap by the property line gap is not excuse me. the surveyed property encroachment is not equivalent to that full amount. >> that's correct if you take the facade off the house you'll see the two inch gap but that gap goes away t and it goes over the gap. >> i understand. >> how did it prevent you from building upward. >> it requires a special engineering base they've over our wall and in order to

reinforce it requires the removal of their property off of ours we have two years to obtain to the encroachment. >> they've built it onto your property. >> i didn't. >> if they've done that then you're asking i think your requesting we set aside this pending litigation. >> yes. and are you asking for i wanted to appeal it within the proper period. >> within the. >> so you want to hold this in abeyance. >> we prefer this permit is revoked until the permit that encompass all the problem would be submitted to the building department. >> when you say all of the problems i thought it was about - >> for example, the new

interior stair way they removed the walls and the plan said they were not speed limit to and built a new stair and hammered the wall to the new stairway that's another form of the encroachment. >> that's not connected to what it is before us today. >> is that a permit and that's a problem for the flying permit of this. >> okay. >> so there was new construction we had all the issues and identified the encroachment our neighbors tried to resolve the encroachment but hadn't agreed on the improvements where they're basically. >> all right. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we'll hear from the permit

holder now. >> good evening. i'm john. together with my wife elsa wong we're the owners of 2179, 5th avenue. we bought this house knowing it was a fixer upper a number of years ago it has more extensive damage with termites and dry rot and despite need of seismic upgrades the cost of doing all. this would obtain prohibit active unless we improved other parts of house so we added on

some of the living space in the form of an extension and a third story edition we had a neighborhood meeting only 3 neighbors showed up the south neighbor had no objection and the neighbor across the street none and then the plaintiffs showed up within seconds of seeing the third story edition said this was unacceptable nothing in the neighborhood is like that >> i catch off gaud because 3 other houses on our block alone have third story editions and a fourth story edition was implemented aaron around the corner. so right off third making

inaccurate statements. they said it would cast a shadow across their house. which i thought surprisingly given the weather conditions in the sunset but we spent the next 6 months revising plans trying to mitigate shadow and finally told your perfectly within our rights to build a third story and shadows were intended for parks and open space not buildings. so we submitted plans and got a permit it was approved by the fire department the department of building inspection and the planning and so we started construction. rt