so hurry up the zoning density designation for the property, this application pursues to create that legal unit on the existing lower two levels of the house. there was an interior stair connecting the upper unit to the lower unit, as it were, and the owner voluntarily removed that in service of creating this unit in 2015. he's always been dedicated to the separation of the two. so legalizing the existing home with a separate address required work to be done to repair the existing foundation which the previous contractor executed under several, separate permits. this in conjunction with needs to create an 8-foot ceiling height, it also required a retaining wall at the great, in conjunction with excavation,

which is itemized in our ee application. the application also seeks to add a variance to the rear yard by pursuing a lower-level grade level spiral staircase, it is just a one story steel spiral staircase. due to the odd configuration of the existing deck, the existing deck does not function as a deck. they are more just landings and we are trying to create a livable space for this unit. this new deck, this new stair would provide ample space so that we could also add extra light in the egress windows in the bedroom at that grade level. the project also proposes a one-story enclosure of an existing light well at the property line. currently there is a deck there. this is adjacent to the 145 corner residence. this enclosure is not visible

from the street or rear yard and is designed to be shorter than the roof eve of 145 corbett property roof. this design definitely includes a fire rated acoustic walls and interior draining roof. lastly, the project pursues, while it has a solar plan and an ac condenser units. we would like to add a roof deck for the interior stair. no actual visible penthouse or anything like that. just a roof deck with a glass hatch which is in the drawings. i think it might be prudent for me not to use all this time itemizing the things you've already heard from jeff. i like to get some time to field any questions or discuss some of the history of the project. so i'm open to suggestion at this point. >> you have remaining six

minutes. use them as you see appropriate. >> i will take a couple minutes to show some images and i will give the floor over to richard. as you can see, this is the photo from the grade of the protrusion on the roof on the existing breakfast nook. for some reason, this breakfast nook is a highly contentious. we provided photocopies of the, you know. >> can you zoom that out, i think it would be helpful. >> oh, i'm sorry. >> this is the same document that you have. basically, the interpretation is that the breakfast nook did exist but had a squared off ba back. as you can see here -- >> make sure you speak into the mic so we can hear you. >> as you can see, it says the word breakfast. right off the back. enclosed.

this is an image of the light well. we intend to enclose it with the adjacent roof. this is a 3d model of the existing condition. you can also see their protruding rear bump out. and this shows you how the lower spiral staircase would operate. generally speaking, that being said, it summarizes all of the tenants of the application that we seek. i would like to give the floor over to richard for a few minutes.

>> good evening commissioners. i record -- represents the project sponsor. i would like to speak for a few minutes about the objections that have been made. two things jump out to me. the lack of detail, and the lack of... those are the two things the commission should be concerned with. anyone can stand up and say this project is unsafe. anyone can stand up and say this project interferes with my happiness. but you have to explain how and you have to show it. none of these individuals has done that because there is no problem with safety, there is no problem with interfering with their light or with their air or with any other things that san francisco protects. i would urge the commission as they look at these objections to think about whether there is anything that supports them, or explains them. i would also like to address something at this time. three would appear to be the primary substitute objections of the objectors. the first is that this is some kind of a mega- mansion where we have added levels. simply not true.

you can see from the submittal that we are actually adding a unit to, not building a mega- mansion. my client to voluntarily removed interior stairs between the two units. it cannot be used effectively as a single residents without those stairs. the fact that this is a mega- mansion, it is made up. no truth to it. second point, they say that we built the breakfast nook. that we expanded out into the backyard without permission. but the evidence shows, photos and documents on record with the city show that was done in 2010 or 2011 when my client purchased at. we did not build to the breakfast nook. that simply is not true, again. number 3, there are accusations, that because of the number of permits that my client engaged in some kind of intentionally deceptive use of the planning process to try and hide something from somebody. my client is doing something that the city promotes. adding a unit. he has no reason to hide anything.

again, no evidence. yes there were multiple permits. my client doesn't know anything about construction. he relied on his contractor who had him pull permits. he pulled it when he was told and as soon as d.b.i. said too many permits, we got a new contractor, we reorganize, we submitted everything into a single package to try to address the problem. i can't say there weren't serial permits taken but that is not illegal. that is not a ground by itself or denying the project. there'd have to be some grounds that it was deceptive for the work itself is not furthering the general plan. there is absolutely no evidence of a record of either of those. so you should -- >> skews me, sir, you are out of order. >> you will have time. >> thank you. i would urge the commission to pleas grant the application without condition. thanto wife your time. >> thank you. is that all you have? ok.

>> that would conclude our presentation, unless you have questions. >> we may but we will open up to public comment first. mr williams, are you still asking for organized opposition? ok. we will open this item up for public comment. i don't have speaker cards, but folks may line up in any order. >> evening commissioners. i apologize for the outburst. there were a number of, i think distortions and twisting of the truth in what has happened with this project over the past, i think four years now since a construction started, since they purchase the property. >> you our best to address us at this point. >> oh, good. sorry.

for about 13 years ago, my partner and i purchased the house that is just below the house that we are talking about here on market street. i've also done, we've done quite a bit of renovations on the house in that time. i've also done commercial renovations on buildings in san francisco over the years that i've been here. four years ago, we had a wonderful eclectic neighbor who sold his house behind us and the family bought the property at the time for what we were told was about $1.9 million in cash. shortly thereafter, is when the first of the troubles began. i spent some time with the family and spent a lot of time talking to them about the work that their contractor was doing and the way he was doing it, and asking them to pleas find a different contractor. a lot of the problems, a lot of the initial problems were really just a contractor not doing his

job of pulling the correct permits, and in the end, going back and trying to pull a whole bunch of permits that encompass all of the illegal work that had been done to date. there were illegal and unpermitted constructions to begin -- that began on the house almost immediately after the purchase was completed. the new neighbors had decided they would turn the house from a single residence into a multiunit home. that's not a problem. but they decided to add a fourth floor to the house. instead of building up cap they decided to excavate down. they hired an irresponsible contractor who initially pulled a single permit eric i think you do renovations on the bathroom. i'm not sure. it was one permit and they went in and they started digging. with one permit. they took out, they started that work without the use of a structural engineer, and they started digging. they took out literally 3 feet of soil from the sub level, nearly 450 square feet of soil

in the backyard alone. and when the retaining walls on either side of the house started collapsing inward, a break used them with 4x4's to hold them up. they still didn't have permits to do this work. when the sub level filled with water, as it does when it rains, they bought a pump and they stuck the pipe out the back window at their basement and they pumped cap hundreds of gallons of wastewater into our backyard. >> your time is up. you can take 30 more seconds. >> thank you i will say, they bought a piece of property for $1.9 million in cash and they inherited a bunch of problems. we realize. we have an eclectic neighbor who went in there and built some things illegally. when you purchase a piece of property as it is in san francisco cap that does not automatically grandfather in all of the previous illegal building structures that have been

created on that property. it is your responsibility to fix the problems. we know this. anyone who owns property in san francisco knows this. they are asking for a variance to cover all of those things. >> that is your time. >> that is what we are objecting to. >> next speaker, please. if there are others who want to speak, line up on this side of the room. >> hi. my name is jennifer. i live upstream from this house. i am saying no to the variance. i am saying no to this eu and saying no to the spiral staircase. what we have been through as neighbors the last four years has been nothing short of hell. we probably will have another two years of it. they have a very expensive lawyer to stand up here to say they did not know what they were doing. they're very innocent. they were naïve. they have the means, the education, and the resources to investigate four years ago. they could have compiled a dream team. they could have applied to

planning. they could have everything they want including the illegal nook. they can have it all. but they didn't do things the right way. they did it deceptively, they did it with cereal permitting, they sued us to get u to not be here today. they have done everything in the most un- neighbourly fashion you can imagine. so i am hoping that you do not give them the forgiveness for just doing four years of construction without even notifying neighbors. we have been put in an unsafe position to the point that even joe duffy was worried. that should say something. thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you. i'm also at 145 corbett. i want to thank you for your time today. it has been a long day for you all so i will make this quick. we have been there for 13 years and they have been upstanding neighbors and we are fairly

tight knit. our intentions from the beginning whenever more than just to protect our largest assets. we engaged the family multiple times. i had multiple conversations with them telling him as well that there's no permits. time and time again. we were told we have the permits, we have the permits. we know that's not true because obviously joe duffy came out and close them down. all of the things that we had been saying were permitted to finally did come to realization that they weren't permitted and joe shut them down. these are the facts. i mean there are alternative facts, maybe but that's the facts, right? i don't know how sometimes things can be said that her so not true. i will address some of the things that he raised. i don't have time to go through all of them but i will address a few things. it seems like they are more concerned about throwing mad at us as neighbors saying that we are slowing the project down. that we are intentionally doing these things. by no means -- we wanted things done from right to pick the

first complaint i ever put in was safety. i spoke to him number -- numerous times about this. we are concerned as neighbors. everything is perfect. we have all the permits. don't worry about it. they claim it was our problem. it is a reaction too. they made mistakes to request the reaction? it took four years and all of a sudden mark cruise starts in 2017. why did they not do this for years ago when all of our nervous were concerned that there were no permits? but here we go. we are still doing this. as far as cereal permitting, it was a man who e-mailed all of us saying that you have a long history of cereal permitting two obvious gates the total breath of the project. i can it is in our e-mail from discovery. when we were sued to make us quiet. we were sued for invasion of privacy. it is funny how when they were asking us what are for settlement was, it didn't mention, don't come on our property.

maybe one of the things you want would be don't come on our property, but it was no you can't go to the neighborhood association and you can't object to any permit. you can't go to the board today and tell you that we can't be here. i'm sorry. this is how. i don't want to get too personal but i have had stress and pain from this. i have 30 more seconds, is that what that is? joe duffy clearly let them know from day one that they need to get everything up to code, you know, i just don't know why we should reward bad actors. i appreciate, truly that they are doing it right, you know. it is it disconcerting that we had been talking about this the last four years. the breakfast nook, that permit is for a permit for a spiral staircase replace, like five years ago. there's never been a variance for that deck. we have a variance to our deck. i have i -- i know i have no time here. i'm sorry? >> your time is up. >> can we make that deck not enclosed so we can have our --

>> sorry, your time is up. >> evening. this is not about the neighbors. there has been an outstanding stop work order from d.b.i. for two and a half years. there's been a planning enforcement case for a year and a half. that is who their gripe is with. they gauged extreme cereal permitting. they say 15 permits but there is more than 20 if you count the electrical and plumbing permit. they went forward to and a half years without a conditional use application without a variance application and without a single neighborhood outreach meeting. without any engineering or soil testing, without shoring, even though it is on a slope over 20%. without approved plans, without any planning applications or review, and that is how they went forward. no shoring and that is why joe duffy was really worried. they remove the entire rear yard and flooded andy's house.

that complaint is still also outstanding. when the retaining walls collapsed. but the real reason that you shouldn't grant the variances that are requested here, as the variance application is completely at odds with the facts. the statements in it do not match the city records. they don't even match the other applications that they've submitted. the variance application says that there is an existing four floors and there is only an existing two floors. the variance application says there is 3140 square feet. the city says there is 2,300 square feet. their environmental application says something completely different. so, they've submitted these false -- this false information and maybe that was a prior contractor, but that's a fact. every permit they submitted under penalty of perjury was false and in response to a complaint from the neighbors. neighbors didn't appeal any of

those permits. they were not trying to stop the project. they just wanted to get safety and get some inspections. but the sponsor's response is to say everyone is lying. have you looked at their brief? it says that the neighbors are lying about the cereal permitting. assess the neighbors are misrepresenting. that's not the neighbors. that's the safety. look at the brief, look at the analysis that the staff gave you. the sff says cereal permitting. they say there is illegal and unpermitted work. and so, how that equals a recommendation, i don't know. but under the conditional use, one of the determinations that you are charged with making under three '03 f. is about whether or not the applicant submitted false or misleading information during th permitting process. and they certainly have. that is a finding that you are required to make to grant a conditional use. that is three '03 f. and whether or not that had a

substantial impact on the permit that they are requesting. don't reward this. don't endorse a project two and a half years later that went forward without any permits. >> thank you. any additional public comment on this item? >> my name is paul -- >> are you part of their team? >> yeah. >> unfortunately your time is up. any other public comments? seeing none, we will close public comment. >> what is interesting is today was a bit of a milestone for the city. we've been dealing with these kinds of cases now, at least for the four years i've been on the commission, they finally sued him, who was the landlord who did cereal permitting and all kind of things. it is actually a turning point in the city getting serious about these kinds of transgressions. i was reading the packet this

morning and i was reading the brief saying that there was no cereal permitting. everything was due to code compliant. i thought you've got to be kidding me. that is what we have been saying. i don't know if this was done correctly. that being said, we sit up here and we struggle every week with a what do we do if someone really didn't know what they were doing? and, you know, at the house came down and they didn't realize that he needed a permit? i think the house was bought as is. i don't know if there was a contractor special report there, may be they did not disclose there were issues with the house. this project sponsor admits that. what happened after these things were discovered, and how the project sponsor handled themselves, even after they were given feedback from the neighbors around these parts, and then a series of permits were granted, just -- they had that case and they had the means.

they probably had -- they are smart people. i can't support granting acu based on what i have before me. >> so -- first of all, can you clarify what needs that see you on this? >> yes. the c.u. as written as one of the conditions or thresholds within the corona heights residential district is this requirement for any building, that any portion of a building beyond 45% require a rear yard needs acu. for this project there are two or three features that need that see you. there is the legalizing, the expansion to this day, and those have already been constructed. again, they were not, they have not been permitted. >> and it is just the expansion

of the bay? >> it is making that square bay protrude out to an angled bay and adding roof form to the roof deck. the project sponsor is also requesting this kind to clean up the lowest level deck. what they are doing is there was the access to the rear yard. it was flush against the rear wall. they want to move that to a spiral staircase. and also now infill where the stairs used to be. i think the variance will be needed for any of the railings that when d.b.i. goes to look at it, there has to be solid fire rated. they are close enough to the property line. so that's two things that happened before the current owner and two new proposed features that needed to see you and the variance. >> what was done with the current owner? which of those actions are required by the see you? >> the proposal of moving the

staircase to a spiral staircase. >> that hasn't occurred yet. >> okay. >> i think the staircase has been removed. and then they want to infill where the staircase used to be. that would be someth the are technically approved -- seeking approval now to do. that not existing at sight. what is existing that requires the see you and the variances? is the expansion of the breakfast neck from a square bay to an angular bay. and that work was done by the previous owner? >> all they did was add that angled -- i mean somebody added an angle? >> yes. and then the deck above it was also expanded and they also put a roof on top of that. it was enclosed. it was almost a two story bay at one point. the current owner, the first thing he appeared to do is remove that deck that had been

over the uppermost floor, sorry the upper most floor deck. >> they removed that? >> and code wise, the aspect of the permit to legalize all the construction, there is no see you barbarians trigger for that project to move forward. >> i'm having a hard time sorting out what the current project sponsor -- and maybe you can help us on this. if we were to say we don't want a grant, you know, legalizing things that were done without the benefit -- >> if you choose to not -- >> by the existing owner, what would that be? >> if you choose to not grant the see you, it would not get their proposed by wilt staircase or infill deck. they would have to remove the angled portion of the bay and return it to the square bay for

the permit. they would have to remove a triangular protrusion where the bay needs building. that we need to be removed. and then the size of the deck above the bay is larger than just the footprint of the square bay. >> can i ask one person from the group opposing this, i don't know who's most knowledgeable about that. >> yes or. >> do you agree -- what does the current owner do that is behind -- beyond what would require a see you? >> the expansion of that bay. we disagree. the fuzzy photographs are not conclusive. we have the interior photos we submitted and, you know, it was never permitted. >> but do you believe the current owner built out that

expansion? >> i do. they did it over the 4th of july holiday where no one could object and they went and got -- the neighbors complained. they called a d8 -- d.b.i. and said they are building out the bay. they are reconstructing the entire bay. , and stop them. they rebuild the whole darn thing and went down on got permits the next day that said they are replacing windows. each violation that was reported ended up with a permit to cover it. you probably didn't have time to go through my brief, but exhibi. >> i get there are a lot of permits. >> but there were also eight complaints. >> there wasn't eight complaints with the existing. >> this is all against the current folks. they just kept going. no matter what they kept going. >> okay. >> they excavated two new floors of living space. how do you do that? >> rate. ok. thank you. >> that's amazing. >> dy. >> commissioners?

>> yes? >> hi. i am the owner purchased the house from the previous owner. the breakfast nook existed, the bay existed and i can give you photos from all the times. >> 's, when we get into legal, we are trying to find out who did the illegal work. >> you are out of order. we have to call the sheriff and have you escorted out of the chambers. we are asking you to stop doing that. >> we found out that the breakfast nook had a permit. the previous owners never objected to it all the 15 years at the breakfast nook existed. we bought it and try to clean up

the place. and then we converted the existing window into a double pane window to make it more energy efficient. we try to put solar. we didn't construct it. you can look at all the photo. >> i've tried. thank you. >> i just wanted to make sure. >> i mean, are you confident to say that that portion of the breakfast neck was built before or after? >> i am confident with the photos. the research i did, if you look down to the overhead cactus was submitted by the sponsor. let me try to get to it. these are at the mls photos from 2014. it shows the interior of the b bay. there's windows as well, you know, built into the structure. you can see the ratchets where the opening was for them. they could have been replaced,

but i do. >> those are the mls photos create that is the angled bay? >> that the inside view of the kitchen from the inside of the angled bay in 2014. >> commission are more? >> i would like to ask a question about the spiral staircase. for this building type and the type of occupancy, the staircase is not a fire escape, it is a communication staircase, so to speak? >> if you are asking if it is formerly a secondary egress, know it is not. >> thank you for verifying that. the concern i have, it since this particular project introduces a second unit, at that particular stair, somewhat it interferes with a light quality to the lower unit and i would like the commission to be very aware of that. the second unit, as we heard, i think is a new idea to basically make the approval of the project

more in line with the general objective of what we are looking for. i do not believe that the staircase is really conducive to having the second unit to be impacted by that. further to that, i think this part, am i correct, you are suggesting also a roof deck? i do not believe that this particular building on top of everything else needs a roof deck. as the main floor already has a deck. i think it's not in the style or vernacular of this type of building type to add a roof deck. i'm actually, similar to commissioner richards, i'm greatly troubled that what is in front of us is outside the purview of what we normally look at. this is a legal issue. this is a building department issue and it is a lot of he said she said. a lot of it maybe innocence. a lot of it maybe in tension.

i am in no position to take sides on what is ultimately a personal conversation between two parties. and since ten part -- both parties are represented by lawyers, i would rather have them work it out then me sitting here and not really knowing how to interpret all the 15 or 20 variances and permits that have been taken out, when, and how, and where. i'm in no position to judge on that. i'm greatly disturbed that this looks like cereal permitting. so many permits kind of fly into anybody's face. and i basically don't know what to do. i have to be very frank. i know the spiral staircase doesn't work. i would basically think, that is out of principal. i would not permit that or add a roof deck. however, the whole issue that

weighs on me is somebody has spent a lot of time getting away with a lot and then we are here. we are being asked to basically sanction that. i am using an intentionally different word because it is for me, ultimately an ethical question. what am i doing? who are we also opening the door for just to do the same? we all know that in san francisco, at this moment, given the workload which everybody is basically bogged down with, there are a lot ofegal things happening every day. you can walk up and down the streets because there is so much construction. there is no d.b.i. that can possibly look at all the details of what our happening. 's for that reason that i feel it is completely overwhelmed with outside judgement. >> do you mind talking about your thoughts on the bay?

>> certainly. this is a complicated matter as it comes for the commission because we have to balance our purpose and intent of reviewing projects on a case by case basis. applying the codes, applying our land use rationale and decisional --dash decision-making that we have. we are also required to enforce here. i have, you know, you know, i would not want to make a decision on the application as a punitive measure. they have done a horrible job following the process. may be it was an experience of property owners. may be it was an experience of contractors or the previous architects, with a proper process has not been followed. the issues as they are not only legalizing the work that they had done, which is not really even before you, that does not trigger this. it is triggering it a work that

they would like to do? they are asking permission to do that. they are legalizing work that was done by previous property owner and i would concur based upon the aerial photos, there was even more work. because of the deck, there had been a roof structure above the deck. there are no complaints from 2010 through 2011, 2012, 2013. not until 2014 when i believe the current property owner acquired the property and started doing this work and started getting these permits. so the issue is the variance justified for what is a very small change to that bay window? you know, a few inches here, a foot or their joseph letter to there, i don't see how it impacts the adjacent properties in a negative way, but at the same time, i can see it is also justifying the variance. we have issues here were the neighbors clearly are not getting along. this situation will not remedy

by itself. they have attorneys but they are not yet able to work things out otherwise we would not be here in this manner before the commission. i don't know that they will be able to work it out by the -- work it out by themselves. certainly denying the variance in denying the application for the bay window expansion means they will have to remove that portion of the building. more work and more activity, i don't know if that's a better solution in tnd. i struggle with it. i think as everybody does pick looking at it, if this was a new application, -- >> that is terribly troubling. what about the addition of the roof deck? what does that mean? >> there's work at the rear with changes that they are proposing to the deck, the spiral stair and legalization of the expansion of the bay window.

>> and the roof deckesn' do trigger it. >> one of the balances here is if they are adding a second unit, that's great. is something we routinely encourage applicants to do. how does it impact the neighbors? if a project is coming forward and providing better access to the rear yard and more usable open space, those are generally, within reason, things that are supportable. i haven't heard very specific arguments as to how the project negatively impacts the neighbors and their privacy and their light and air, you know, it could be i mean one -- what do they think of the spiral staircase, if they have their roof deck, the upper unit can get the usable open space from that roof deck. maybe there is compromise here. that will require people getting a roof deck.

may not have adequate open space. >> there's taught what spiral stairs. there is an existing one going from a proper unit. >> there's also one, there was a spiral staircase coming off the bay to the next level. per plan, there was slush against the wall that provided access to the rear wall. >> that exists. currently the upper unit can get down to the yard? >> currently yes. the sponsor has put a window on that wall for the lowest floor with the flushed direct access would've blocked that. putting the spiral staircase deeper into the rear yard. that second lower staircase is proposed before you today with the mcu.

>> but the roof deck is not before us, but if -- >> the roof deck is just part of the overall proposed project that we have rolled into one permit to not have any, you know, if we have enough permits on the project property as is. >> i mean i would be supportive of not, of denying the construction that would take place in the future. whether it's the spiral staircase or the ground or the roof deck. like you said. eliminating those from the project. >> i moved to approve the project limiting the spiral staircase and the roof deck. >> okay. a question for staff. if the roof deck is removed and the access to the rear yard per

plan, the sponsor has, again, the staircase that should be against the wall. >> i could get down to the first floor cap through direct access to the rear yard. >> what is the opinion in regards to the bay window. what were you asking? >> you can grant or not grant to

the variance on it. it sounded like you are in agreement and removing it at this point. he did not do anything for anybody. it probably causes more infraction. >> no. >> commissioner richards? >> mr williams? >> the question i have, you know, that begs to be asked, or maybe you know this, maybe you don't, during the course of all of this exceeding the scope of permits before the current project sponsor bought the house, why were there no complaints? you know, we see there was a breakfast nook, and there was a roof over top, and then all of a sudden the complaint started not long ago. >> it's my understanding it was left open. they did not have a solid angular wall, you know, inches from them. if you go out there now, they put the railing over the property line for their deck. but it was my understanding that it was open so they had, you

know, light and air through the porch, the deck and, you know, they didn't appeal any of the permits. the neighbors had not back they called up and said, you know, they've completely gutted the house. there's no permits on it. don't you think you ought to come out and take a look at it? that is the complaint history. when they ran down i got a permit, a false permit, they did not appeal those permits. so there is no animosity coming from the neighbors except for, you know, the in-your-face ongoing construction project. but that area, there wasn't that angular attachment to the bay. we would like to see those remotes because that's where you can see at. >> you mean the angular attachment to the breakfast nook or above on the deck? >> on the breakfast not. it sort of one and the same. i mean --

>> on this thing here? >> you have pictures? that is the wall that is sort of in their face. the neighbors have a variance for their open deck and they used to look at an open deck. >> when did the wings appear? >> they are put on by the current project sponsors. >> we are looking at wings. this is what we call a wing. this l-shaped. >> i'm on the other side, and ju 3rd is because they took down a wall. they took down like an open space and they put up a wall. that is what i could see. i called and i said, they are putting a wall up. there was always,. >> up there on the upper deck there it was more enclosed. >> so the top top deck had a weird funky thing and then the lower deck, which is what they

called the breakfast nook, it was an open porch that my neighbor made over a period of years. but it always had a light coming through our house. >> how do you explain the m.l.s. photo from 2014 that shows an enclosed breakfast nook? there was not a wall. >> we never said that they extended. i never said that. i said they added a wall. was in my complaint. they are adding a wall and i just knew myself that we wanted to take our little nook out. we have a little window. our architect said -- >> will you point to this on the overhead? >> you can't see it on this side. i'm on the other side of this. >> generally, where? is it on that main floor with a breakfast nook? >> i will get a picture of it. >> to have a photo of it? -- do you have a photo of it?

>> what direction does that point to towards your house? >> you need to speak into the mic. you need to come and point to the picture. you have to talk into the mic. on that side of the breakfast nook? mush mac -- do you want a window there? would you rather a window there than a wall? this is what we see when we look at our house. that is not a -- you can see the cavity or the coming out area. [indiscernible] you can't do

that without a permit. i know that. when the city said they are just enclosing windows, i was like, ok, you know, maybe you can do it. i didn't know. every single square inch of that note has been redone. every window, every floor, every wall. the interior, the exterior. don't you need a permit for that? shouldn't that have been permitted to begin with? i didn't know it was unpermitted until we hired an architect to do our own plan. a lot of the reason we didn't call on our neighbor, i did not have the information at the time. when they started doing all this, i had the information and i knew it was wrong. we are simply asking that they take it back to the square. take off the bay windows, and it may not -- >> can you put that picture back up? the one you had? >> it does not seem like a lot to you but for us, when we look

at it -- >> so you are looking out your window and that is the addition to the nook? >> yes. >> the angled addition to the nook. i don't understand. maybe the architect can help me. i don't understand what we are looking at. i thought the nook just goes back to the building. she is showing a wall there. >> that's right. there is a wall. >> if you look on this plan... >> that wall does not exist when they put that wall up. >> do you know what that wall is? can you look up c.u. 3.2? go ahead, can you just let the architect address that for a second? >> it is true that there is a triangular wall connecting the existing rear wall that's at the

upper three lot line. it is a small facet connected to the side. >> can you put up that photo. put your phone next to this. these are the plans you submitted, right? >> yes. >> that window we are looking at, can you point to the plan what window that is? no, keep that up. keep your photo up. >> thank you. >> architect, can you tell us where that... what window is that, right the there? that window is on an angled wa wall. >> the window is on a 90-degree wall consistent with an old wa wall. >> put that plan up again. but see, why don't i see the angled window? it is confusing.

see that window on an angled wall? where is that window on that plan that you show? it can't be that one. that's an angled wall. but he told me, we are legalizing what is there. right? is that true? so where is that window? no. can you put the overhead view up that shows what you have there? exactly. if we were looking down, where with the window be? move it up. but the closed captioning is in the way. move up there. where is the window? no, no. in the overhead view.

isn't it the window in the bay? yeah. exactly. >> so where is the other window? why can't we see the other window? >> can you move up the plans because a closed caption's is blocking its. >> there should be a wall at a 90, instead the wall comes out into the neighbor's house. explain that to me. i'm having a hard time rectifying that photo with what is there. yeah. but the drawings are what is there, right? >> i was very careful to model and to draft exactly what i measured here. >> that's impossible. where is that window, then. >> this window, put up the photo and point to the window. >> maybe somebody else can confirm this. this window is here. >> how could that be? we would see steph farther out

on the angle. >> the deck from the neighbor's house at 145 extends beyond this window so it actually is looking southwards. the neighbor's deck looking this way at it. >> but i can see to what will windows. i should see the angled window and the window on the side of that bump out. >> may i? >> yes. >> you're looking at the photograph from this side. >> but then there is a new wall there. where is that wall? >> there is another window here that existed and we changed it into a double paned window. that window is a vertical wall that faces the neighbor. >> there is no vertical -- >> please speak into the mic. >> let me try and explain. this window is the angled wall and their deck extends beyond our window so they can take a picture. this picture is that angled window. at this is the vertical wall.

it goes from the bay to the back wall of the house. >> i don't see that. i don't see any vertical wall where is the vertical wall? i see a horizontal wall. >> this is the wall from the bay to the house. >> can you show me where that is on her picture? >> i can't see what angle she has taken these pictures. but this window is the vertical wall which goes and there is the angle over here. >> yeah, yeah. >> the angle goes over there. >> yeah, but it looks like -- >> look at, the only thing that was modified, the nook had glass there. we just made that a solid wall. this particular situation. this particular protrusion has glass there. we made that glass. >> it's impossible from that photo, i think. >> but if you take --

>> the photo is not perpendicular to the subject building. why that nook is not showing as you would expect on a plan. >> it was taken from an angle to the building. >> i still don't think -- i don't think you can do it. you should explain that to me. >> we also don't know if that wall is fire rated. >> but can you explain where that window -- where is the other window? >> can you -- >> there was, alike, a bay window, i would say it was almost like -- >> see that window, the second window, not the angled window? if you draw your finger owed her finger down, towards his house, note, the other way, that window. can you see that window from your house? where is it? >> i don't know where that window is. >> they took it out and put a wall up. they took out the window and put in a wall. >> thank you.

can you explain that? >> i watch the whole thing. >> we got it. >> this is a previous permit from -- submitted and at this point there were three windows. there is the triangular protrusion, the perpendicular wall and the bay wall. the angled bay. it sounds like this window has been infilled. >> that's a second window? >> rate. this one, does not exist as a wall? >> yeah. >> i still can't figure that out from that picture back if you can see the angle, the window on the angle, why you can't see that other window. >> that window today exists. if you want me to put it up, i will show you that window exists. that window today exists.

you see the niche -- the photo, i don't have it. i can tell you, you see this window looking into the kitchen, that is the only thing that we put out of that window, and by the way we covered up that window because it becomes a he said she said kind of thing. if we complain i don't want to look at that. >> can you put up this photo for a minute. >> all these windows exist. >> as is how the structure exi exist? >> and i asked the neighbor? >> this is what i see.

do you see that? >> no. it is dark. yeah. >> they took out the window and they put in a wall. that was our complaint. >> so that window you see in that photo? >> yes. >> that is a side window. that's a side window. so these are next to each other. i get it now. the window on the angle that has been added is stepped back a little. it is very shallow. it is hard to see. >> they got rid of those wings -- >> you can't see that from that photo. i mean, in that photo, nothing will help you by taking the wings back. you can't see the wing. for many of those photos. what was that, your cough equally just kidding. [laughter] -- your coffee?

just kidding. [laughter] >> but you see that protrusion out. >> the wings don't help you at all. that's not the wing. the wing is where you look at it above. >> it's in the corner. exactly. >> it wouldn't be difficult. >> was at added by the new owner? >> they did every part of that deck. without benefit. >> what we need to see from you is not that. is just that shallow addition that you can't see from any part of your house. >> you can't see it from my house. >> not from those pictures. thanks. >> i trust you. >> because there is so much uncertainty in this project in

terms of documentation, what are we looking at? what are the photos? what are the plans? they don't all add up. it is hard for me to go through them. i am asking we continue this project. to get a clear set of drawings and photographs and get a clear statement of what the issues are. i think the commission, with some modifications is intending to look at this project as being approvable, however these types of things, this kind of tripping yourself and saying, sorry, i broke my leg. i want clear documentation about this particular window and the little wing there in order to understand it. i am not taking what has been shown to me, and nobody can tell me what is and what isn't and make a judgement. i think we have a motion but i am asking that we pull the motion back and continue this project with a request for clear documentation of what the existing conditions and the existing concerns are.

this is not working. >> i get it was confusing. i think i know what we are looking at now. i mean i still like the original. i do. i think it is you can't see it. that addition is kind of shallow and you can't see it. i get there is issue with -- with other things, but as far as what we have in front of us, i would like to see -- >> just listening to the neighbors, instead of being accurate reacting, there is a thing called a ock book notation that you can put on the parcel. so if there's a question you have you can call the building department or the project sponsor in advance of having something constructed. i would recommend that is what you do. please speak into the mic.

>> every permit was retroactive. they would do the construction, the neighbors would say you are doing construction, than they would go get a permit for something completely different like replacing windows. >> so maybe, to the neighbors, when one of those permits is issued after construction, you can contest them due to construction. >> they did not contest any of those permits. >> that's your option. if we see this happen again appear we will not be as nice. i think everybody learns a lesson. >> commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded. >> on the motion to approve this matter with conditions, as amended to eliminate the roof deck and spiral stair, commissioner johnson? commissioners? this is a move that it passes 5-0.