defense lawyers property noting the public defender's is taking steps to legalize and correct the top features with the architects plans shows all the work to be detain with the existing penthouse proposed for legalization about the blinded wall to the adjacent property to the side and the increase of par fit wall will be minimally visible from the street the department represents you not take dr and approve the project as proposed the dr requesters concerns with the deck is as follows: the features create a drainage problem and the rear stairs was built does not comply with the planning code the rear staircase project was reviewed by itself residential design team they say it meets the

guidelines noting the project sponsor is taking steps required by dbi to legalize and correct the rear deck and stairs to grade originally built almost thirty years ago the rear stairs proposed are loud as a permit obstruction within the planning code and the stairs are proposed to be legalized of the dr requester they ask you not take dr. >> approve it that concludes my presentation. >> dr requester our team has 10 men's. >> thank you for your stamina can those be sdrntd i'm to take

the rear stairs which is 48 and second will be the first one i'm picking up i paul cox a civil engineer and i represent the dr requester rear stair issue i'll be bring to your attention the items and that 3 of which will require our considerations and mention two other items that are action items handled by the building inspection. >> can you speak into the microphone. >> it's on one. >> okay. thank you. >> there you go. >> go ahead.

>> can i precede first just to make sure we're oriented correctly this was written by the consultant for mr. kc the owner on wraud restrict a couple of years ago just for our orientation 2701 green is outlined in green on this slide and 2655 broderick is in orange here's an exterior affirmative of 2701 green the property line the issue before us on the rear stairs has to do with the property line issues to the front of a 8 foot high retaining wall a light well so for the first issue the property line of 2701 green has wood

decay due to the contact with recent fill we'll laboratory mr. shirz that was taken adjacent to the light well retaining wall if you look at this slide from the bottom to the top there was bedrock and sand and to fills a f cuba sub one and two and another one next to another issue not before you today you'll notice a f go sub 3 is the target you'll see it is higher than the adjacent retaining wall and placed so that it rotted out the wood wall that was mounted on top of retaining wall a f sub 3 is about a foot deep if i move to the next item the height of the stair foundation

as built is an additional cost of wood architecture contact and looking at mr. shirz this geological it appears to be correct i need to correct the retaining wall on the right-hand side there the actual foundation is lower than shown in mr. shirz report and has redwood lap siding it causes decay user the response that is this photograph in our staff report if you look at the lower left-hand side you'll see clearly the siding is buried in soil and it's not just in that location behind the stairs it moves all the way to the back of

the building here's not view of the back of the building and the property wall is buried in this a f sub 3 soil a recent fill this next photo which is not in our presentation this other retaining wall the lower portion at the bank property line so the bottom portion of the soil is decayed rotted out and so is the flying framing the gentleman needs to get to the soil the planning commission needs to declare it needs to be removed 6 inches to the siding to provide the wood, to prevent wood earth contact and lastly the stair

foundation actually not lastly the stair foundation and the trees must be removed to allow repair of the decay to the property this is this photograph this entire staircase has to come out so he can get to the property and fix it so this and lastly the reduced soil level may affect the set back and that's up to you to interpret whether or not the section is adequately depicted by the soil level to be considered is 17 or 18 inches lower than it currently sits and the also the inner permitted patio that was built there, there are to unrelated issues in that the soil fill that was the

recent fill a f-3 and the stair and stair foundation inflict additional sewer surcharge that's the first part of the presentation shall we move to the other one or stop and consider. >> no please go ahead. >> okay. >> i need a moment here please excuse me. on the roof deck there are 5 issues for you to consider we have the same orientation for

to particular dr we're looking at the front outline in blue and the penthouse on broderick the first item permission to build the roof deck was deleted numerous times why denied or withdrawn doesn't mater that and the roof deck was built 3 times over the expressed objections of the naebz there's 7 of which take it out e.r. don't put it in and we'll look at three of those in 1990 a delete was written on the plan you see in the graphic at this point they were he trying to get a mefrt bedroom 4

story built and this was not permitted in 1995 when owned by the hawkins replace the decking and the most deck was illegal built by mr. skais i didn't himself in 2008, he had an approval for a reroof there's no indication he built a roof deck but he did anyway and he didn't rebuild it the way it was he extended it to the north side and the issue before you today is if you want to approve that roof deck that's fine but some of the neighbors my may object he encroached across the property line into the neighbors property

this is also from the gentleman's graft it's a good graphic a two inch gap between the buildings the assumed property line is halfway between them they have to gap nobody knows the property line so you don't encroach on someone's property, however, when this deck was built the column the corner post put on the edge of the roof and covered with first lap siding and piece of trim the trim has been taken off to the encroachment is three-quarters of an inch long. >> thank you yourself time is

up. >> thank you is there any public comment? in support of the dr requester? i believe there's one public commenter >> we obituary the house on green street. >> which shires condition tigz property line with the kc lot and the gentleman's i'm not here with any ax to grinds not specifically involved in this at all i want to say as a neighbor express a concern payroll a number of things went on in contradiction unpermitted the roof deck, the surcharge of the rear yard. >> i don't know about the

roofline stuff but i think if you approve southern things here today that we're not permitted and not approved that would have con sooefbl been caught the planning department would say this doesn't work as a neighbor we want to see the community work the way people go through the proper process and completed their work with permits eye i hope this can be resolved in a way to be enabling we've lived there 25 years and before that on broderick street by the way, wisp involved with the initial writing a letter which we didn't want that roof deck because living on broderick street and casey upstairs house

we looked at the golden gate we didn't want that elevation between us and the bridge it got built without a permit again i don't have an ax to grind i get my information second-hand but want to see if you can help us thank you. >> thank you. okay project sponsor our team has 10 minutes. >> good evening, commissioners i'm greg on behalf of the casey family pardon me we too want to see this roasted that's why the case by case you didn'ts in spite of the con conduct helogically built a desk he had

a permit to reroof the structure and replace the decking as was there are two permits here if approved legalize those illegal structures the rear stair was built under a permit that was approved and issued, however, the permit extraordinary without the required dbi inspections that rendered that stair illegal the subject permit legalize the stairs as built there's a slither difference in the lapd a furrier number of riserers that may be make a right angle turn working with dbi we filed a applicant and new modification permit on that permit and have met several times with dbi plan checkers and inspections to make

sure we meet the building code we were confident it met the building code the current staff supports the project and haven't found extraordinary circumstances and brought this to you as a abbreviated dr now back to the roof deck 20 years ago the owner of 26 broadway rake filed a permit that include exterior modeling and property the roof deck and the stair penthouse the project sponsor removed the deck and penthouse if the scope of work it was done by hand and the department staff don't change the scope of applications they can make notes about code references but if those have to be done that i the

project sponsor they could also dispassive it the penthouse were removed if the scope and sometime between 1985 and 1990 the stair penthouse and the roof deck were constructed illegal without rectify they were apparently built to the professionally architecture and engineering plans we've done some exploratory disruption to check the if i may the main thing commissioners what are before you are two site permits they're here no planning review the technicalities of the soil and co-hemorrhages maybe aren't properly discussed in this venue if you want to discuss we have a our engineer here but those are planning approval if the

commission moves to beginning the beginning dbi brown will check the aspects submitted by the project sponsor and his engineers at this point the consultant and gentleman will have an alp opportunity to look at the dbi safety issues that are part of the normal city review process we know from the planter permit that was referred to and upheld at the proilz the gentleman is not shy in inserting himself onto the process so that opportunity about come should the commissioner paragraph those proprieties the general altitudes of dbi and the city attorney's office are not to pursue the punitive things especially in if the property owner doesn't cause the

violation this is not a reason to take dr both projects had preapplication review with the neighbors both projects received 311 notice and have been transparent in review with the department of building inspection their appropriate and mirror certain elements and improve the reliability the dr requesters is unhappy with the projects for for his own reasons he has a few valid points we want to work with the flashing at the roof deck graduate wall and the removal of the stairs for i am had maintain his property if we get a assess policy in place our soil reports

it is less than a foot in several places we want to conduct a boundary survey of the buildings you saw the gap the gentleman made the assumption that entire gap belongs to him and could bridge and encroach open the caseys property when you have abutting buildings with a small grandpa in their roofed over or made waterproof and nobody has issued issues if didn't it explicit matter who is flashing as long as something is between the buildings, however, the inspector expects the department of building inspection to impose financial burns on folks for a rotted

fence this is a finite life in the packet you'll see this rotted fence it is true the casey soil probably contributed how is mr. casey responsible for rot on his fence my gentleman assumes it is an off commissioners we believe this project should receive the planning approval please don't take dr and allow those to move through the proper process. >> any public comment in support of project sponsor

seeing none, dr requester you have a rebuttal for i believe 4 minutes. >> good evening structural engineer i'm delighted to hear that the gentleman is willing to work with us in regards to the retaining wall and trying to do this for quite a while i know this is an engineering issue that has to do with the retaining wall we have absolutely no desire to prevent our neighbor from this

code no desire from having him restruck our only concern he does it without structurally effecting our wall that discussion took place a long time ago i offered a solution a structural solution per bonding to have it implemented many difference ways to retain or remove or eliminate surcharges having big trees next to our wall it is over 91 years old is not a neighboring act we ask you lower the grade that's why we're here it's been 4 years in the making. >> may i have the screen please

hi, i'm frank i'm geotechnical engineer i wish to take the retaining time there's a lot of comments about the fill a f-3 it is, in fact, for more like 18 inches form of o foreman to properly lower the fill height between the stairs and the building you must remove the stairs first then remove the fill if you want to put the stairs back that's fine but not place a surcharge open the wood two on the wall and third in so doing if you look at the footing that footing sits on old file i hope a new design will properly design the foundation so it sits

on competent material like the that's the issue the fill is a recent fill as recorded by connecticut insuring that is an excellent geotech firmer you have to take the stairs do you think that's the issue here that's the issue as far as, mr. dui listency it was because of his injection into the planner that is being removed and new one being built if it wasn't for him we have another issue with the planner thank you very much. >> thank you project sponsor you have the rebuttal. >> commissioners, i have no other information to add out of respect for our time i'll wave

them. >> that clicks the public hearing portion. >> commissioner richards. >> i i guess i recalled a situation where a neighbor built something up against my house we came to an agreements i sad with the neighbor we talked about it he pulled his fill away and another neighbor removed the thing like a gate attached to my house and this was the neighboring thoing thing to do mr. license platecy we had an issue of who is house was leaning we talked a survey and

oh, my god so i cut a piece of my house off and went on my merry way i thought why didn't mr. casey do this and that you've offered to do so i think the process for the building inspection will take care of a lot of the issues i don't support taking the dr those are side permits. >> is that a motion. >> motion. >> second. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i too have experienced the first house we sold a sub grade and part of the sellers expense was directed at the problem somewhat similar but i'm not quietly quite sure what we're able to do at this point sounds like both sides are awe meblt to the caseys going ahead and removing the fill and

laughing the folks that make the repairs as part of the agreement and putting a new foundation for the stairs in bedrock and building the new stairs on that side and the other issue everybody is able to a survey to determine the line and put their deck on whatever it is appropriate can we condition any of this stuff or is this all dbi stuff. >> i think it's all dbi. >> okay. well my finding will be i've heard the discussion that sounds like the way it some precede, however, i'm not sure we can take dr we have to allow for the process of legalization of the deck or the and then you know the process of legalization

of the stairs that are existing in completion of the deck sir, you have a comment on that. >> you have to come up to the microphone. >> thank you frank i just i understand it's a dbi issue but you have an understanding and that understanding is that mr. casey is willing to remove the stairs and lower the fill height and allow the gentleman - can you motion say your motion is based on the understanding those things will be done so in confusion and we may be able to say we have a finding i would feel a motion of we do not take dr we'll have to disapprove but we're not taking dr but with the

recommendation those things be done if it's okay. >> i'm even though maker of the motion i have licensed approvals in architecture and spiritual jerry civil engineering the applicant has its own engineers here he building that the standard of care in all profession represented here are enough with the dbi to have the competent obligation to adhere to what the professional conduct requires if you're doing the process of dbi it disputes this commission didn't have the professional quantifications to get into the things except the department urging the dbi expertise to deliver a project that a.d. here's to all higher standards of professionalism we all can testify to that