people specifically who are requesting to receive the decision letter at planning commission hearings. we do not have that sheet and in this situation, as is mentioned, the requester e-mailed the planner, requested a copy when it was issued. the planner said they'd do that. unfortunately they didn't do that to that request was not made even though that expectation was created. regarding the bbn, that is a service we provide. you can request any specific parcel in the city that you be notified when certain types of applications are filed. if you look at the language it is to be notified when an application the filed, not for providing notification when a decision letter is granted.

it doesn't mean it could be worded that way. that could be requested and we may accept a bbn that requested that, but the language states we receive notification when we receive certain permits to notify those parties that we received this application. that application did not mention anything about using the bbn to be made aware of any specific decisions on a projebt and as was referenced we don't have a variance tracking system online. there is no public space where someone with track when a variance decision letter is issued. they would have either have to request a copy of it ahead of time or once it is issued contact the department and request a copy. so in terms of notification following the code that was

literally applied but the planner agreed to send a copy of the decision letter to the requester and that didn't happen until much after the appeal period. i'll available for any questions you may have. >> is that common practice for your staff to provide that level of service? >> for variance decisions, absolutely. again, we do it standard at the variance hearings through a form that anyone who shows up can sign and provide their contact information and request to receive a written copy or e-mail copy of the decision letter once it's issued. again, whenever it's a join hearing with the planning commission it's a different room layout, it's separate, we don't have that same method and in those situations if someone wants a copy of it they need to request it from the department either

beforehand or once it's been issued. >> with that sign up sheet is there an expectation of timing? >> yes. the expectation is when the letter is mailed out to the applicant and published and issued it will go out to everyone who requested. that's the only opportunity for somebody to know that has been issued and be able to avail themselves of the appeal period if they choose to do so. >> the problem with nap is the zoning administrator doesn't give his destigs. decision. .

>> and they've said there's going to be another trial for the building appeal so all those neighbors are willing to come down here and say that they're for the project so anyhow, that's all i have to say. >> any other public comment. commission, the matter the before you. >> i've made this comment

multiple generations, zoning administrators here that a variant sometimes has a greater impack than certain permits and why is there an ability to be able to find those easily enough. the same is true of letters of determination . unless you know something specific to be able to look for it you can't find it. it's not known. unfortunately that's not what the planning department does. i'm inclined not to grant jurisdiction on the basis

that planning staff does not have to provide that level of service in terms of ongoing communication. >> i agree to a certain -- you know, there is no commitment, but when they actually e-mail and give a commitment, i think there's a certain amount of expectation they set in regards to that. if someone promises you they're going to call you and let you know -- >> non logically i would agree with that. >> is there a motion? >> it's too bad because each one -- and, you know, the fact that there may be an appeal on the building has nothing to

do with it. people are deserving to appeal or not. do you want to say something mr. tigue? >> very quickly. we post letters of determination on our website. we don't post variance of decision letters. i don't know why exactly. i can speak with the building administrator and we can report back to you as to why we don't get -- >> it doesn't have to be a major i.t. projoekt. we can sepd send it out to those on the original notice. >> a bbn would not have helped in this situation, correct? >> no, not necessarily. >> an issue for me is an expectation was created but there was no requirement.

i guess i'm a little confused about this e-mail. as i read it there are two questions. will you also be sending the notice, to which mr. smith responds yes. second question, we would also like the notice from the permanent issue. aren't they one in the same? >> i believe it's two second requests. >> right. he doesn't answer the second request. >> no, we're talking about the first. >> with respect to the variance. >> do you have another comment mr. tigue. >> i should have worn my purple tie. i have reviewed the e-mail chain and if my recollection is correct michael smith stated that he would notify them when the decision letter was issued and also informed

them that the planning department does not issue the building permit, that dbi does that and they have their own noticing and own system and he referred them to dbi for tracking and determining when the building permit was issued.

you have in the past sort of considered a very similar issue with at&t permits and i believe exercised the discretion to grant jurisdiction because the department caused -- >> right, thank you. >> and we also got taken to court in boston. -- and lost. >> you were taken to court and lost at trial court level where the law didn't require notice to be given but you distinguished that case. [inaudible] hearing before you where there was evidence that

the department had caused and you relied on that. you've gone down this road before and you have been able to decide that discretion. >> i'm going to make a motion to grant the jurisdiction request on the basis that department inadvertently caused the appellant not be able to file on a timely manner. >> we are a motion from commissioner honda to grant this jurisdiction request. three or four votes are needed. >> commissioner fung. >> i. >> president lazarus. >> i. >> commissioner wilson. >> i. >> thank you. the vote is four to zero. jurisdiction is granted. the requesters now have a five day appeal period to appeal this variance and this appeal period end this coming monday. thank you. >> we're going to take a very

short break. >> welcome back to the december 17 meeting on san francisco board of appeals. we are on item 10. the subject property is at 1614 noe street. the requester asked that the board take jurisdiction over applicant holder which was issued on august 26, 2014 and the jurisdiction request is filed at the board office on december 1, 2014.

the permit holder is steven fouler and the project

>> everybody was getting along fine with the new house. instruction was well advanced and the project architect went to the planning department counter with a set of plans for a revision, is what he called it, a new permit revising the previous permit adding a roof deck and skylight and saw over the counter approval of this.

it was brought to mr. omakaro, but many knowledgeable architectings might go to the planning counter at that time if they were trying to get approval for something that might be questionable or sketchy. in fact, this permit authorized construction of a deck that similar mrip can't be approved. it is above the limit set by the special use district. the height limit of the general planning code for residential design is further limited by the special use district and no exception for anything above the 35 foot height limit is granted under that special use district. it's very unfortunate that the project sponsor sought to permit it in this way and frankly, i'm kind of baffled by the argument made by the

project sponsor's council saying that the neighborhood discussions were conducting in good faith and that the fact that they didn't abide by those agreements is a civil matter. i've done this kind of negotiation with rubin's office for 27 years and never heard something quite as cynical as that, that people should stand by what they say they're going to do and neighbors fulfill their responsibilities by finding out what the project is intended to be. 25 neighbors all surrounder the property have signed the petition for the request for jurisdiction. people care about this. it's a new thing on this block and i think this board should grant jurisdiction as it was by error of the planning department denied the applicant the opportunity to file. thank you. >> in your brief you did not

provide any documentation on those discussions. >> there was no documentation of those discussions. there were meetings held between and the neighbors were satisfied the decks they were concerned about were eliminated? >> no 311 notes or anything? >> no, this all happened prior to that stage. >> thank you. >> we can hear from the permit holders council. >> thank you. good evening, i'm here tonight on behalf of the permit holder. we're asking that you deny this request simply because it doesn't meet the board's standards. also, the permit work issued

here is now nearly complete so allowing a late appeal would cause unreasonable delay to the permit holder. as mr. brian indicated earlier after the board appeal is passed intentionally or inadvertently caused the requester to be late in filing the appeal and the standard is not met here. heerm the city followed procedure in code requirements and issuing a permit and caused no delay in filing the appeal. the permit holder was issued a permit to construct a three story home in the property in february and began construction in august. they were issued a revision to install a roof deck with a retractable skylight in the building under construction. this revised permit was oefrz the counter at dbi which was a process that let the applicant hand carely their permit from station to station for prior review. however, it won't be issued if

that i have don't meet requirement ls. before issuing that permit, however no neighborhood notice was required for this permit. the planning code didn't require notice for installation for legal roof decks in in the buildable yarl. in addition, public policies and documents in the planning department confirm that roof decks within the buildable lot can approve with no naibl notice. because no notice is required the department didn't ere in issuing this permit. the height concerns are unfounded first because the roof deck is located on a flat surface and the only vertical elements are a parapit wall and railings which are exempt from the height limit. even if they were counted toward the height of the roof deck the building itself is

beneath the 35 foot height district it's only 31 feet and the railings do not amount to the extra 4 feet. the per mipt was issued more than three months ago so the permit holder [inaudible] anticipating completion next week of installing these steel railings that have already been ordered. in response to comments regarding any agreement between the party there was no agreement or understanding regarding roof decks. we have brought copies of the presubmittal original plans showing changes that were made at that time. they involved removing areas of the building in the front and back set back and other changes, nothing having to do with a roof deck area. thank you very much. we're available if you have questions. >> counselor, were you involved in those -- >> i was not. >> -- discussions? are you aware -- were there

discussions of roof decks? >> there was a portion of the building, not at the third story roof area, but portions of the building toward the rear of the lot and front of the lot that people had requested be set back further so it was more in line with the properties to the north and south. one of those areas had a roof deck on them and it was removed as part of the process, but not because it was a roof deck, but because it was a location of that building extension. >> then the permit had said had no roof decks. >> the original permit submitted have a roof deck at 311 that was noticed, no. >> thank you.

>> mr. tigue. >> good evening, planning the president staff. department staff requires to be noticed. also specifically the question of the delores height special use district it states no portion of a building shall exceed a height of 35 feet above the existing grade of

the lot. the existing building as a proved it's building on does not exceed that height. the special use district doesn't in any way limit how the code does exempt certain features from height restrictions under 260b. this is no different than the preordained height district for any property, whether it's a 40 foot height district hor higher. you can go above that height district specifically with those features that are exempted under 260b and the use district doesn't exempt those features. we basically interpret them and implement them the same way which is non structural features that are exempt under 260b, such as minimum required d parapits and railings don't fall under this requirement

for height and do not require 311 notification. i'm available for any questions you may have? >> did any planning staff attend any of the neighborhood meetings? >> generally we do not, especially not on the front end and it appears that much of the work with the neighbors on this project happened as we like to see on the front end. >> i'm a little confused. the overthe counter permit, is that from you or dbi? >> both. it's a building permit, but the scope of work is such that it does require the planning department to sign off before dbi -- >> in other words, it's been walking around one of the departments? >> it's the kind of permit that every agency that needs to see it can approve it over-the-counter so we approved it over-the-counter as the other agencies. >> thank you. mr. duffy.

>> on the building department involvement in this building permit involved the intake on august 18, 2014. it was checked for building cold compliance on 26th of august, 2014 by robert chunk and issued on august 26 as well. it was an over-the-counter approval. it was probably checked for architectural from dbi however, i'm pretty certain of that. that's normally foundations, additions, so roof decks would n't give us to give notice when the permit's issued. it's a standard roofer deck permit that looks like it's properly approved as a stand alone permit for a roof deck. >> thank you. >> is there any public

comment? seeing none, commissioners the matter is submitted. >> he said she said. >> i think if we are consistent with what we ruled on we allowed jurisdiction. >> i'm not so sure. >> why would you add a late provision to your permit that late in the game? >> i don't think that's the issue here, however. perhaps what he did was not particularly ethical or above board, but if it was all done appropriately within the code i don't know how you get beyond that and not to mention the fact that relying on the city's approval of the permit, the budget is just about

complete. >> yeah, because you don't know it until they're at that level. >> that's isn't a standard for granting jurisdiction. >> what isn't? >> it has to be an intentional mistake. >> i'm going to ask you to speak into your microphone. >> that doesn't meet these standards? >> right. >> i think the issue goes a little bit before that in terms of whether discussions had occurred, a scope had been decided, elements were either included or not, but the problem here is that nothing has been presented to us. these guys are saying two different things and we have no basis to accept either one. excuse me, we have no basis

to accept the fact that a certain agreement had been made. the -- >> i would move to deny jurisdiction on the basis that the city didn't inadvertently or intentionally cause the delay in the filing of the appeal. frments i >> i would have to agree in this instance. >> so moved. >> there is a motion from the president to deny this jurisdiction request. on that motion to deny, commissioner fung. >> i. >> commissioner honda. >> i. >> commissioner wilson. >> i. >> thank you. the vote is 4, zero. jurisdiction is denied and no appeal shall be filed against. thank you.

>> item 11, appeal 14-6 [inaudible] the property is at 1410 [inaudible] properties llc of a street improvement permit. construct new 15 food wide concrete sidewalk to provide a walking path from clarendon after to subject property. we'll start with the appellants. you have seven minutes. >> good evening president lazarus, members of the board. steve williams. i can true hi