ended up caught between those two things or better yet excuse me. not better yet but much worse yet becoming a part of what has already been a problem between the two buildings we've having had participate boxes fall from the top of this roof down to our roof that is 9 feet from here to here. it shows how excess the height of the building already is and how dangerous it is. now additionally to that situation we have a neighbor who is sitting here with us today mr. grey green. mr. green house stalks his neighbors this is what we end up up with you have tenant that have been up on the roof i had a

locally young lesbian couple that told me they didn't like our building maybe you know why. the other thing that i found out by reading the brief that he was presented to you. is that the architect was a renowned architect that i should be most impressed with because it has good credentials and here are the credentials they've presented in their marketing material and it says they come up with initiative schemes yes, i've been a part of their initiative schemes we have their building and one of his initiative schemes which is to draw something much smaller than

that is. as he an illegal up to the present time house stairwell that's been fully accepted by the building department you notice we have a slope that shows that the slope of the nature grade of that grarlg that i showed you that the building department calls a basement garage if you look at that there's no garage shown it it goes like this absolutely the option of that schematic i'll show you punishes or pictures at the end you'll be able to see 20 feet between the in front of that and the back of the lot line where we say they have a rear yard. so moving along to some other

slight of hand with that argument you see this this is where they say the building is located this where the building is located under coit tower that is the dimension this is what we draw this is what the actual inside. this view from >> ma'am, your time is up. >> thank you. okay. we can hear from the permit holder now >> i'll pit some documents up here. okay. i'm putting some

documents up on the screen all right. i don't know how well those will be seen but good evening. i'm here open boost owners the property and also the permit holder and also here are clinton and robert green as well as neighbors they're available to answer the questions about the permit history as well i'll start with a quick description for common text this the residential building that contains 3 unit, however, was cracked in 1986 a non-contributory building it is limited to in kind replacement constructed in the 1980s and permitted there are no other areas of the building effected aside self-the rooftop area the

owners are replacing the rooftop with the original 1988 permit the rooftop decking on the screen your looking at the 1988 permit on the right is the current permit those exist before any of the current owners bought the property when the par pit wail were removed they had water leakage. it was eliminates the owners intent to apply for a separate permit to replace the roof-deck and they'll filed that's the only scope of work we're looking at today, the project will not add anything to increase the height of the building or africans to the interior or

exterior only that narrow scope of work at the roof you're seeing up on the screen siding comparison and the current permit to replace what was there in cuisine you can see in the images on the screen the roof-deck on the front back of the building is the same size as the current permit the existing stair penthouse and the boxes they have not been removed in changes as part of the work the project involves installing a par pit wall to replace that what was roochld 2, 3, 4 in 2010 and replace guardrails and, in fact, reinstalling that guardrail is necessary for the

owners to comply with the order of abatement to reinstall the guardrails to bring their proposed into the code requirements finally in the application because this building is non-contributor is located within the telegraph hill historical district as part of the approval the planning department historic direction reviewed the plan and it found it will qualify for a certificate because wear dealing with non-replaceable roof-deck replacement it will be consistent with the historical district, however, the appellants appealed the issuance of the administrative certificate we mentioned in our brief raising the argument they do today they were investigated by the planning department and cleared at that time. the result was that the

administrative certificate of appropriateness was upheld by the prehistoric commission in december. i also want to briefly address some of the issues that were raised in appellants brief they've alleged work was not done complaints before the owners took possession of the building and the planning department passing has confirmed this the appellants alleges have been investigated and dismissed by the planning department and in addition most are simply not under the refurbishment of the rooftop decks and were contradicted in the 1980s through the investigation records we've provided in our briefs the department confirmed

the top decks are consistent with what of the permitted from the original permit and under the height limit those features will not be changed p that will not the fact the rear yard that will not be affected by the work it was constructed as permitted and consistent with building construction in the 1980s and finally numerous other complaints raised by the appellants rashgd the windows and use of improper materials and other items were but without merit to summarize the work we're looking at it limit it this in kind replacement of the roof-deck and won't involve other areas they've been reviewed by the dbi and others in the permit process that went on for a couple of years in

addition the appellants allegation many of which are unrelated to the work were investigated and founded without merit we ask you go ahead and approve this permit and allow the work to continue i'm available for questions >> mr. duffy. >> no, i don't need them. good work commissioners. the building permit under appeal permit application at 1179 one one to comply with the work number. the permit got applied for on the 17 of november 2011. and it went through building

inspection and that went through the fire department review and the planning department review as you've heard and reviewed by our planning department plan check i've look at the plans and all of the work is code compliant or the building code i don't see issues with that and i'm available for any questions >> mr. duffy can you summarize the c s c history for the building. >> for the whole building? >> yes. and i could off the top of my head we have a lot of the records here tonight i believe the building was constructed in an 87 permit. >> let me restate are there open issues recommended to this building that was not done. >> the building was built in 87

the chief inspector records has them tonight be i'll ask him to come up and present those there's a c a s c for the whole building. >> for the whole building. >> i'm sorry it got built no 1987 under one ordinance and signed off on july 2, 7189, it got removed because of the roofing job and they've got another permit the one issue it took them a long time to get the rooftop on and mr. sanchez if they've applied for a permit sooner they won't had to go through all this but it took them a long time to come in and

get the roof-deck back you have to take the new roof-deck to get it on and it took a long time we issued a notice of violation and rescuing them to do what they're intending to do now. >> the original deck their rvrptd replacing in kind was final. >> yes. indeed under the one ordinance back in july 27, 1988, we cf ced the building. >> just to clarify because they took additional time to get the second permit in kind it went through scrutiny and the decisions with mr. sanchez back at the time with mr. green the process was almost as if it was a new roof-deck.

>> so that went through the planning commission. >> i believe if i replace a roof-deck in kind right away you wouldn't have to do that but i'll let mr. sanchez that's the planning department if you need anymore history mr. r&r done has records with him tonight. >> thank you mr. duffy. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> thank you. good evening commissioner president lazarus and members of the board i don't have much to add the parties have presented their arguments pretty clear the permit is code complying a certificate as stated that was administrative active certificate of appropriateness that requested a hearing at the preservation commission they declined to take

more action and this was final earlier this year that's all i have to add it's code complying if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them. thank you >> thank you. >> i actually have a quick question how many hours of your time has this case taken. >> i haven't claublthd this but this case for ones in the jurisdiction in 2012 for the property line windows that are legalized and there's been additional staff time several planners have gone through this over several hours more than 10 and perhaps up to one hundred but i don't want to give an exact time. >> but it's helpful. >> it's a significant amount of staff time and that's what i suspected any public comment on

that item? seeing none, we'll have rebuttal starting with the appellant. >> my husband will be here for the rebuttal but i have a couple of things to add we're rebutt their claims. >> please talk into the microphone. >> you didn't see the plan that was permitted by the city the plans in the packet there's two pages to those plans inform marks on the plans that indicate they're approved. i would have expected that dbi would have picked up on this right away because they have the copy of the approved plans i can't get them this is the configuration of the deck right here. and this configuration is much

bigger than the original permit in 1987 this is not an in kind replacement. john, please hurry. i would like to say that logic requires accomplishment of this demolition logic requires that the 42 niche inch par fit wall be returned to its previous condition if this is an in kind replacement i filed want notice of violation in june of 2010. >> i don't know how many of you are married but my wife didn't give me a lot of time to talk the plans are both not finally and are also not approved so your side to side comparisons

won't be useful quickly the san francisco building inspection and planning code lucky protect us all once the provisions are over looked or go forward the protection is eroded or lost equally germane if the application of those prerogatives are unequally applied we have 12 tenants in our building that are women that need the protection from mayor richard green that disregards safety recollections and crawls under the deck with the camera to snap pictures when he believes no one can see or hear him in kind construction was permitted the original 42 fire pit wall has been reduced lower the fire protection between the buildings and impacting on privacy although privacy and

security seems to mean little to our neighbors and the telegraph hill maximum building is not 44 it is a 42 foot as determined by our surveyor plans it's the limit and as a sunlight i result there's stairway penthouse stairway is over the limit and your time is up. >> thank you very much and we can hear rebuttal from the permit holder. >> i'll keep this brief we've stated the majority and to reiterate again, this is a in kind replacement as it existed as built to code in 1988 the delay referred to earlier they applied for a new permit because

proposed new modifications and were told by the planning department if it's an in kind replacement that lead to a longer review period for the project. as we saw from that side to side comparison that was up earlier we're looking at replacing the feature that were there before the this go a code compliant and investigated numerous times taking a great deal of of time and department resources. through those reasons we're asking you, please deny this appeal and allow this permitted project to move forward we're available if you have questions about the project history >> any rebuttal from the

departments? mr. duffy >> commissioners, if it helps you i have the approved plans for the original roof-deck and the approved plans for the roof under appeal. >> that will be helpful. >> i'll try to get them on the overhead there's a little bit out of the scale but hopefully, we'll get it. overhead and overhead. >> overhead. >> okay. we can move that they're out of site let's start at the back on this one here is the roof-deck that got approved in 1988 this is the back deck

here. and you can see in the approved plans their smaller as i say it is pretty similar to what we have in the 2011 permit and there's a gate back there and the deck comes in a little bit and kits in then the existing penthouse shown on here on this plan it's under. and let me see if i can move the plan up a little bit. we have the walkway coming along which is shown on the 2011 permit the walkway here and the deck at the front area which is we've got the gate still there the existing penthouse the existing penthouse they're calling it a stair on this permit it's a enclosed penthouse

or stair this new roof technical at the front it looks similar the skylight in similar position and a set back area here. so it looks pretty close from what i see think the plans if someone want to dispute that the attorneys brief there was this plan we got this plan today i'll pass it over to chief inspector r&r done >> you may not. >> one thing excuse me. he's testifying. >> i thought about the code issue the 42 inch par fit wail that was mentioned the requirement on that in the code was thirty inches a lot of people build them as the 42 but the architect choose to build

behind the guardrail bringing it up to 42 inches it's code compliant i want to refer to that there's no requirement for a 42 inch solid wall but the thirty inches of that would have needed to be fire protective so they've built it at 42 inches. >> good evening, commissioners chief speaker patrick r&r done and ma'am, can you please sit down it's distracting no our time is up. >> good evening chief building inspector patrick i see the recommendation of the two sets of documents put before you open the overhead they may not be exactly the same but they're

very close to what they had before we understand the issue is the roof-deck and just the roof-deck and i believe that roof-deck is compliant and it probably wouldn't have received the amount of security new it it had of been replaced{n back in 2010. we have put a lot of staff hours into complaints back and forth between the neighbors here and this is a representation of some of the time we've been dealing with the complaints i believe somewhere in the order of 2 hundred hours in staff time in dealing with the complaints. the building was signed off in 1987 or the work was signed off

based on a 1986 pirate it was signed off by the chief building inspector excuse me. this if you could zoom in a finally completion of the work done on the building in 1987 it was signed off by an individual who of you is a building official in the city of berkley and she was very thorough in what she did i don't assume there's much wrong with that. additionally this is some database paperwork that i generated to indicate the deck was signed off in 1988 the

existing deck the demolition for the preroofing work we're here because it's being put back in place tonight. due to the staff time we've been putting in i decided in november of last year to write a letter to all the tenants in both buildings i have that in your brief imexploring them to work together >> thank you for your time. >> anything for mr. sanchez commissioners the matter is submitted. >> oh, i'll start i have plenty to say is about this case i am very convinced that multiple city agencies have looked at

this permit and have spent numerous amazes of reservoirs as beginning and planning department, attorneys so i commend them for their declines and patience the permit has been thoroughly served vested i found no merit to this appeal i've admonished the appellants and anybody that appears about the board not to file frivolous appeals for the purpose of obstructing permits i'll do that tonight because it's a waste of city resources to hear those appeals any regulations for the

purpose of delays and i don't want this forum to be used as a tool for people to do that instead of working with their neighbors and there's been plenty of time to happen and it is really very troubling to me it hadn't happened. that's what i wanted to say about that so i would vote to deny this appeal and is that a motion >> yes. >> so moved. >> one short statement if i might the reason i asked the question about the c s c is because there was so many things brought up in the briefs as what was legal and not legal the fact is the cf c confers a legal status to the existing building then the question of the specific permit as to whether it

was in kind it looks like exactly to what their previous i support that the department has correctly read it the in kind replacement. >> so with our motion vice president do you want to state the one the basis of the permit was vested by all city departments that are replacement to this appeal? >> i would like to second all the points that commissioner hurtado made. >> thank you. >> with respect to the use of this board. >> so we have a motion then from the vice president to deny this appeal and uphold the permit on the basis it was properly issued and thoroughly vested by all relevant city departments on that monomotion to uphold. >> commissioner fung.