in blankets with a smattering of their approximapossessions. we can put a few more resources to getting people off the street is and getting people working again. we are people, not the homeless. thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm wendy click. i'm from hospitality house. i want to just ask for funding in restoring the mental health services. this is an assess to the program that i work for at hospitality house. each week when i see an individual come in for individual or group wellness groups, they come out lighter on their feet. those that are in our community receive the same case managers for various support, and with those case managers there's over 100 maintained housing once they're off the street. we have one community members who was homeless for three years, and he had a approach

the bench staying in, but confidence his wellness and community managers that have supported him, he has may i approa approach -- maintained housing for a year. so i'm asking you to fund the housing and community support services. thank you. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. next speakers. >> hi. my name is becky, and i'm here to support and ask for funding for our youth organizing. purchase our youth are here. one of them spoke. we have currently summer youth programs where our youth get to understand the issues that are affecting them are systemic, and this really empowers them to do their information. they're able to do, you know, inform and then pass this onto, like, their neighbors and such, and really, we know that -- we often talk about youth being the future, but they are now, they are experiencing what we are experiencing. they are part of this community, and we know that

it's really important to work together, so we are working with others asking for $300,000 for youth funding, particularly or specifically 100,000 for casa de just cause. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. next speaker. >> my name is marie job for the community living campaign. i'm here to talk employment, particularly employment of seniors and people are -- with disabilities. 61% of the people in san francisco lack basic economic security. the unemployment rate for people with disabilities is five times the rate for others, so among the employment asks, there were two of particular interest to us. one is the s.f. reserve program, which was 317,000, and the other was for the senior community employment services program, which was 250,000, both providing subsidized employment for nonprofits. we want to be part of the solution to issues you heard today, so please put us to

work. when you go back to your office, you'll find a flock of worker ducks have left more about this message in your office. thank you. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, board of supervisors. my name is judy young. i'm the executive director at the vietnamese youth support center. we're asking to support a mental health program supporting vulnerable vietnamese youth and families who are experiencing depression and trauma that go untreated, and when they ask to see a therapist, they have to wait two to three months to see a culturally competent therapist. so with the grant, we would be able to serve youth at our community site with an on-site therapist. and the second ask is a

$160,000 facilities renovation. this will allow us to serve over 500 youth in our community with bathrooms and a.d.a. compliant. we currently only have one bathroom, so we hope you'll consider this request as part of your budget appropriation. thank you. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. next speaker. >> thank you. how you doing. hi, supervisors? we're all nonprofit. i just need help -- we're going to walk the streets in the bayview, we're working with parents, single parents, mentors, we're going to mess with kids with behavior problems, we're going with y.g.c. i ain't on calendar, i just want walking through it. i wanted to put you on notice, and we are a 501(c)3. we'll be working the bayview district, mission district, chinatown. we need to address the kids

that don't have food, not having breakfast in the morning. you know, we need to get in their face and kill them with literature. we should be up and running real soon, so we need you all support. you'll see me again. and you all doing a great job, and you all look nice in here. nice staff. take care. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. next speaker. >> hi, supervisors. debbie lerman from the human services network. first i want to thank the mayor's office for supporting our nonprofits by doing a cost of doing business increase in each year, and renewing our nonprofit displacement founding. we ask the board to do what you can to grow the pot and to prioritize the budget justice coalition ask and will assist our vulnerable and low-income communities who have been left out of the city's wealth explosion. i want to touch on the process. we want to ensure that this

body achieves its goals of transparency and community engagement. i w i am concerned about the limit of public comment time to one minute which limits speakers to broad generalized comments without time to discuss policy. we ask that you also do not delay any of the add backs, make your add backs as specific as possible because it takes a lot of time to r.f.p. and contract things, get the money out to the community as quickly as possible. thank you. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. thank you. next speaker. >> hello. my name is deanna. i'm here to ask you to please consider parents for public schools and keeping them in the budget. they do an incredible service for the community, particularly for marginalized parents, mostly parents of color and

immigrant parents in bridging the gap of understanding from maybe the public education systems that they're used to and being able to choose the school appropriate for their child and also in facilitating that intimidating process of make even not knowing the language and parents for public schools does a great job of empowering parents to want to become increasingly engaged in their students' education, and also to bring community with fellow parents of their parents schools and to be able to make a positive impact on the educational futures, and as we all know, the overall out comes of that child. is that telling me -- >> supervisor cohen: yes, it is. next speaker.

okay. >>. [speaking spanish] [voice of interpreter] >> my name is guadalupe, and i live in bayview. and i want to please -- oh . and i want to please ask you to support p.t.s., which is through parents for public schools in your budget because they really help us develop our engagement as parents and our knowledge of -- so that we can better help our child's educational future. they give us information about everything we don't know, and they help us better support our children, and we need to have parents for public schools. we're all latino parents

because we don't necessarily understand everything that the district provides us with, language gaps. and they really help us with that support. thank you. [end of translation] >> supervisor cohen: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. thank you for this opportunity. my name's daisy hernandez, i am latino outreach coordinator. i am working in bayview area and mission and visitacion area, too, and i would like please include p.p.s. in your budget because we really do great support for the family, and if this is not happen, the family is going to be affected. please remember p.p.s. i think we're doing great job. thank you. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. are there any other members of the public -- please come up.

>> jean adams, lifelong san franciscan, long time member from the days of old son mary's housing community, there's a new wave of homelessness coming to san francisco. there are only grandmas raising grand kids, reference mayor london breed raised by grandma, reference mayor willie brown raised by grandma, but for how long can grandma continue raising grand kids? there's been no cola raise in three years, and yet the cola increased imposed on rent stablized apartments year offer year. that means rents going up and

will soon exceed income for these old people. ten cities will soon become wheelchair cities -- [inaudible] >> supervisor cohen: miss adams, thank you for your document. your time -- you've exceeded your time. is there any other member of the public that would like to speak in public comment? okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you very much. thank you to the men and women that came to public comment. we heard and took copious note oz wh s on what we heard. what i'd like to do is continue items 1 and 2 to the june 21 meeting. do i have a second? seconded by supervisor stefani, and madam clerk, do we have any other business? >> clerk: that concludes our

business. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. we're adjourned.

>> sfgtv, ready to begin? good morning. today is wednesday june 20th, 2018. this is a regular meeting of the abatement appeals board. i would like to remind everyone to please turn off all electronic devices. the first item on the agenda is roll call. commissioner constan

-- konstin lee mccarthy walker warshell president clinch is excused and commissioner moss is expected. oh, commissioner moss is present. we have a quorum. the next item is item b, the oath. will all parties giving testimony today please stand and raise your right hand. do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth to the best of your knowledge? thank you. you may be seated. next item is item c. approval of minutes. discussion of possible action to adopt the minutes for the meeting held on may 16th, 2018. is there a motion to approve the minutes? >> move to approve. >> second. >> clerk: there's a motion and a second. is there any public comment on the abatement appeals board minutes? seeing none, are all

commissioners in favor? any opposed? the minutes are approved. our next item is item d. new appeal, order of abatement, case 6846. 2459 32nd avenue, san francisco. owner on record appellant samuel kwong, benny kwong, revoke the order of abatement due by delay caused by the planning department. the department has 7 minutes to present its case and the appellant as 7 minutes to present their case. if there is public comment for each person and 3 minutes for rebuttal. is there someone from the department presenting on behalf of d.b.i. just a moment. you could have a seat.

>> good morning, all. a complaint was investigated on may 5th regarding an illegal addition of the back. when we got access to the property, we found there was an illegal addition, two story vertical addition on the back. 90% completed, no permits, electrical or plumbing inspections. the owner was given corrective action to obtain a building permit to legalize the structure with a set of plans. at this point there's no permit listed for that property for this addition. so d.b.i. is recommending to uphold all orders of abatement procedures.

>> can the appellant come forward? >> good morning, members of the board. sam kwong, architect representing the owner. this case was called in after the owner got the violation and we applied for a permit. the permit number is already listed in one of the documents. and the delay is really caused by the planning department not having enough staff to even assign a planner. we were waiting for planning to even put somebody on for at least two months before we got that. some good news right now, the planning released the approval and on monday this week i obtained the over-the-counter approval to take the site

permit and get it approved and i think within the next 30-60 days we should have the completed plans approved for corrections of the violation. we are moving ahead. so we ask the board to not penalize the owner for delay caused by the other departments. >> through the chair? >> yes. >> has the notification gone out to all the neighborhoods, all that was done? >> yeah. the neighborhood notice and -- >> the expiration time frame. >> yeah, and all those time frame is 30 days, 30 days. so that took some time too. >> that's all -- >> completed and signed off, sir. >> okay. no further questions. >> any other? okay. i guess we could do rebuttal,

if there's any. >> unless you have a further presentation, you may be seated. >> thank you. >> does the staff have rebuttal. i'm sorry, public comment. any members available for public comment? seeing none. rebuttal time. >> so the owner was explained the process. if he needed time he could get an extension. based on whether he was working with another division. nobody from the property actually came and said, hey i need more help, more time to address the situation. to be honest, it's 90% complete. the owner was given the choice whether to demo it down. for the permit we would expedite to demo down because

we had multiple complaints, calling me myself to go out and say hey they are building it now and we finally got access and saw it was 90% complete. >> so just a question. it sounds to me like there's been approval from planning. have we seen any of that at this point? >> no. >> do you have copies of that approval? >> it's a filed permit but it doesn't mean they have a permit issued. i know the complainant was to a point that any permit he was going to appeal. i don't know if you looked at the pictures. >> did they build this over the weekend? >> when i got there it was 90% completed. two story addition with foundation, full electrical and some plumbing, i believe.

>> thank you. rebuttal? >> members of the board. this week i got the email from the department of building inspection that the plans are at the building from planning that i can take it to over-the-counter which we are doing this week. once we have this site permit over the counter approved we will submit the addendum, which includes the foundation design and whatever structural and title 24 energy compliance to legalize the structure. and we believe that it is very easily legalized. the neighbor has no objection to this current size of the structure. please allow the owner to

legalize what they have been trying to do for the last six months. >> through the chair. you do understand that a building was built without permits, you know? >> yes. >> to make this sound like everything is okay now. it's a pretty serious extension. i'm just trying to figure out how did the owner think they were going to build a two-level extension at the back of a home seems over 1,000 feet of structure built there, is that correct? >> no, it's very small. it's one room. >> what's the square footage? it's two levels. >> below is a crawl space, it's only a one-story structure. and it's about maybe 250 square feet. >> so that's a crawling space i'm looking at? anyhow, either way, let's say it's 500 or 800 square feet of an extension. >> well, there's a crawl space -- >> let me ask you, what is the

extent of the living area on your plans you submitted to planning for approval. what is the total square footage, please? >> about 300 square feet, i would say. i don't have the plans in front of me. >> you're the architect? >> yes. >> so, let me just ask. because all we can do here is look at what's given to us. we have testimony without any documentation of this. >> you don't even have any set of plans to show? >> no, the plans are already approved. >> why would you come to a meeting like this and expect us not to ask for a set of plans. >> there's no instruction from the owner please bring these documents to you to come to the hearing. the only notice was please come to the hearing. so we are here at the hearing. >> as an architect, you don't think this is irregular an extension like that would be put on. when were you engaged in the project? when were you involved? >> after they were notified of

the violation. >> so you were brought in to legalize the building? >> correct. >> this is a request for a re-hearing. excuse me. this is on the abatement appeal. so the director's hearing -- we issued a. >> it's great that it's legalized but it still doesn't eliminate the abatement, right? >> we -- where is my? i'm going to read exactly what the front page says. the order of abatement was issued with conditions. so we already issued an order of abatement. they had 30 days to complete a building permit and complete all the work. and that didn't happen.

so this is effectively -- >> i'm just confused. >> we submitted a building permit in 2017, august 29th. the permit number 201708296247. this is the one that the planning already approved. so we are taking this to full compliance with the foundation plans to legalize the structure. >> may i ask a couple of questions? >> yes. >> sam, are you related to the property owners? >> no. it's the same last name. >> thank you. the second question is how long has the existing unpermitted structure been there? >> i was not -- >> okay, you don't know.

>> i don't know when it was built, i was called in after the notice of violation was received. >> then my question to staff would be, what state did you find the unpermitted structure? was it under construction? was it finished? >> he took pictures. in my estimation probably 3-4 months before he was there. first violation issued may 7th. >> it's under construction then, the department would say. >> let me just mention that both the owners, their english is very limited. so a lot of the correspondence may be -- they may not be aware of what these letters are. after i was retained, i tried to explain to them all the paperwork that's involved and have attended the director's hearing and explained to them

that this is a process and this is how we have to get it legalized and have to go through this neighborhood notice process. and we did all that. and now we are ready to get the full permit to finalize the legalization. >> just through the chair, was this a licensed contractor who did the extension? >> i don't know who did the work, sorry. >> i would just like to weigh in. to me it seems there was a clear violation and there's no evidence to the contrary. it's great it's being resolved but that's not what we are being asked to look at. i'm of a mind we would uphold the order of abatement and hold

it for 60 days, assuming they would get a permit. and if not, it would -- >> i wouldn't even hold it in abeyance. i would just deny the appeal right now. that's what my recommendation is. this work was obviously done intentionally without a permit. and that's something we, as a commission, have discussed we don't want. and we want to impose some sort of penalty to make it feel impactful. >> yes. >> my feeling would be, why don't we just straight out deny the appeal. >> second. >> without knowing if it was a licensed contractor who did the work, it feels that was the right thing to do.

>> this is brad russi, city attorney's office. just to clarify, the order is a motion to deny the appeal, uphold the order of abatement and impose the assessment of cost. and would you like to state a basis for the motion. perhaps that the order of abatement was properly issued and the department didn't error in its use of discretion. >> yes. >> exactly what the city attorney said. >> there's a motion by commissioner lee and who was the second? >> i second. >> commissioner mccarthy second. we will do a roll call vote. commissioner konstin commissioner lee commissioner mccarthy commissioner moss commissioner walker commissioner warshell the motion carries unanimously. our next item is case number

6845 60 clifford terrace. own of record and appellant dorian and julie stone. we will have the department come forward. >> i apologize. my representative is running a little bit late. if we could please just defer that item for a little bit. we would very much appreciate it. >> we will hear out of order.

>> we are going to hear item f. the hearing request. items f1 and 2 should be heard together. possible rehearing of an item. this is case number 6843 3515 santiago street. heard and decided march 21 2018 at the march 21 2018 hearing the aab voted to uphold the order of abatement and hold it in abeyance for a period of 90 days. on the condition work be commenced within 30 days and be completed within 90 days and to impose assessment of cost that the order of abatement was properly issued.

>> seems the last a.a.b. hearing, numerous reinspections have been scheduled but cancelled because the work is not completed. as of yesterday, phone call with the owner, she stated she had completed some minimum work in the kitchen but we have no activity on the active permits. the initial complaint in the case was originated about a year ago at the last hearing. 90 days were granted to

complete the work. as of today, we have no substantial work. and again, no permit activity. it's your decision if you want to grant a re-hearing. >> is the appellant present. >> i was in the property -- >> state your name for the record. >> marilou samson. >> you could go ahead. >> i was reading for mr. lopez for the re-inspection yesterday. the reason for the cancellation, i was waiting for the electrician and he kept rescheduling with regard to the box of wiring. i have a contract to put the panel in and he changed -- he

didn't complete the panel, per my electrical contract. and he renewed the permit and stuff, that's the reason for the cancellation. i was waiting for him and he rescheduled and also my work schedule. and then also, the reason for the renewal. originally i got two bathrooms that was for the original permit and the other bathroom upstairs was completed way back in 2006. there was electrical and planning permits i was requesting a final, they said i have to wait for the other bathroom downstairs to be completed before they final it. the other bathroom downstairs was for my mom who cannot climb the stairs. but he passed away last year and she ended up renting

somewhere else because of a contractor who left me with the second bathroom and waited and waited. so we never pursued the second bathroom until recently which kind of delayed the original permit. that's the reason for the renewal. although the first bathroom has previous electrical and plumbing that needs to be finalized and then also, there was activity on the permit. before the last director's hearing, i got a permit because the original bathroom was in a different location and then albert young, the inspector who got the electrical permit approved said let's final a revision for the relocation of the new bathroom, which i filed before the last director's hearing and then also on the planning permit that was approved, that was approved on that relocated bathroom where i filed the revision of the new location.

because the original permit has a different location of the bathroom. for your correction, when the inspector came, he said there was only one tenant. as of today i don't have a tenant. but yeah. he said there are tenants and there's only one tenant living there who filed this complaint because it destroyed stuff in the house and i ended up evicting him and i got into this complaint. and also the electrical contractor, i'm pushing him to correct all those wirings because he was supposed to put the panel there. that's the reason for my cancellation. he kept pushing the schedule on me. and then i waited for inspector lopez yesterday to come to the house. at 3:00 but he texted me, i

didn't see the text. what else. yeah, and the last inspector who came to see the bathroom, because there was a dome there on the bathroom downstairs, he asked me to raise it another six inches. it's supposed to be for a steam shower and there's not supposed to be any leaks or openings, that's why it got lowered. and i'm planning to call the inspector to come in and approve the corrections. the corrections raise that dome on that shower. and what else? i only received this packet yesterday. i read it last night. i didn't have time to read it, i was only reading it today, you know.

and there were, what else. i got permit. it says here i don't comply with title 24. i complied with title 24 because albert long approved all the electrical permits. everything complies with title 24. i don't know why he says it doesn't comply with title 24 or albert long wouldn't have ever approved the electrical permit. i didn't have time to go through all this, i just got this last night when it got into my mailbox. and i'm doing the work. my mortgage on the house is $3,500. i'm working within a limited budget. if i work on this on full blast, i could lose my house. because the electrical contractor whom i paid already $5,000, the original contractor $6,800 charged me another $6,000 just for the panel.

richie is working, i'm forcing him to work on it, but he is working slowly and that's my reason for the cancellation and i had an appointment for an inspection with mr. lopez yesterday but he happened to be not be there. >> are you done with your testimony? >> i got permits for all my work. all the work i did have permits. >> this is a request for re-hearing. so the issues that were before us for the original permit, there's no evidence of anything else. you are just giving us a reason why you aren't complying with the order of abatement conditions. joo* >> it's fine. >> i'm just saying you have professionals who are working on this for you? >> yes. >> okay. thank you. >> but they aren't very

diligent. i may have to do some complaints. >> may very well be but nonetheless. >> any public comment on this? no. then rebuttal? >> take public comment first? >> there's no public comment. >> [inaudible] chief building inspector. here is the concern we have. let me read you goal two of the department's strategic plan. provide inspections to enforce codes and standards to protect occupants rights ensuring safety and quality of life. this notice of violation is over a year old. you gave the property owner back in march 49 0 days. 90 days. she has cancelled four times. a lot of items don't have anything to do with the permit. none of that work has been done by her admission. we heard some work was done

with respect to the kitchen but there was mold and mildew, a lot of things going on. she is also telling us the tenants are gone. this is exactly what we don't want to have as a result of this process. we are concerned while she said she just got the application, she is the moving party here. she has filed the application for this rehearing. she hasn't given us new information. she is just rehashing. while i have tremendous respect this may be complicated for her, she has had additional time and the help of this board. so we are concerned the tenants may be gone now, the conditions still exist. we are trying to preserve the housing and the absolute result we did not want to occur seems to have occurred. we do not believe as staff, we strongly advocate that a petition for the rehearing be denied. thank you. >> appellant, do you have any rebuttal?

>> i'm doing my best. i have to work. i'm pushing the electrical contractor. i requested mr. lopez to go there yesterday. i only received this so we could check every one of them, whatever their concerns is. he happened to be there yesterday. i said i rescheduled because i was waiting for the electrical contractor who was rescheduling on me and part of the complaint was his job. i hired him thinking he is a licensed contractor and he did the work with permit and stuff and i'm doing my best. i have a $3500 mortgage every month and all of this work involves a lot of money.

and if i do the full blast i could lose my house. i'm begging the commission. i'm trying my best. i would like to talk personally after the hearing, make an appointment with ms. rosemary to tell her what my concerns are and go one-by-one. some of these i don't know, like title 24 and the stuff to the garage and there's no mold and mildew in my house. i would like to talk, they could even go to my house. >> yes. and they were scheduled to do that 3-4 times already. you cancelled. so i appreciate that. i think it will happen anyway. >> i scheduled a meeting with mr. lopez but i waited the whole day yesterday but it didn't happen. >> okay, thank you. >> that's why i called him on

the phone, what's happening, i'm here waiting. and you know, that's why i called him on the phone yesterday. >> okay, thank you. >> i recall this case. we're always sympathetic to people trying to do the right thing in rectifying problems. and as i recall, we asked the city attorney what the maximum we could do to assist this homeowner and the 90 days was the maximum that we were allowed to offer her to get this situation under control to get the permits, the inspections scheduled and to get some resolution to this. i think that was our best

effort to see a good resolution to this. and if it were as simple as -- we've had several inspections. things are shown to be proceeding well, but there is need for a slight additional time requirement, i think we would be sympathetic again. but when i hear three inspections were cancelled and there's been no permit activity, my concern is that, you know, the demonstration of adequate due process or good faith in getting this addressed has not really been shown.

it would be my opinion that the complaint is properly written and that no further extensions should be offered at this point. if there are options for this homeowner to diligently complete the project and file some appeal to the penalties, if we saw resolution in a correct and expeditious time table. so not seeing that, i would

uphold -- >> this is a request for re-hearing. >> i would deny the request and -- >> is that a motion? >> i would so move. >> brad russi, city attorney's office, the motion is to deny the request for a re-hearing and would it be on the basis the applicant has not come forward with new evidence or established legal error? >> correct. >> a motion, is there a second? >> i'll second that. >> a motion and a second. we will do a roll call vote.

[roll call] motion carries unanimously. back to item e. continued appeal order of abatement. 6845 60 clifford terrace. dorian and julie stone. would the department like to come forward? >> good morning, again. senior building inspector --

a complaint was filed february 12th 2016 regarding a bridge -- >> can you speak into the -- thank you. >> a complaint was filed 2016 regarding a bridge built in 1961 or '67. it seems there was more permit research to look for the -- that happened in the 60's. so we investigated a complaint, did permit research and found there was a permit in 1961 showing some plans that showed no bridge. and then permit in 1989 that showed an existing bridge, walkway going to a roof deck for a detached garage. so we issued a notice of violation on march 1st 2016, showing permit 244366 shows

there's no walkway in the plans. but in permit pa a79973 identifies a walkway as existing so requested to obtain a building permit for the construction of the walk. so staff recommendation is to uphold the order of abatement and assessment costs. >> any questions? >> i do. in 1989? >> yes. so this complaint came forward, you know and stated there was a bridge that was built in the 60's. we actually asked for help with planning to determine whether in 1960 it would require some type of permit for these items. both permits went back and forth. at one point we abated the complaint because we had no clear evidence but we found

that permit in 1989 showing an existing bridge. but it was approved by planning but we still wrote up the notice of violation because we couldn't find any actual legal conditions whether that bridge was actually built before '89. thank you. >> is that standard practice in our department? >> yes. yes. >> so we will go out and identified whether something was built at a specific time? >> yeah. any time we get a complaint like this stating there was something built in 1960 or 1970 without a permit, we go back and do permit research and we put it on the owner to show us proof it was legal. >> do we use the code and enforce at the time or use the current? >> the notice of violation states the work without permit

9/1/60 is actually on the notice of violation. >> okay. do we have any photograph specifically of what we are looking at. >> i believe what we did, inspector duffy attached all the plans for the 1989 permit that shows a walkway. >> i don't see any. do you have them with you? >> yes. >> can you you let us look and put them on the -- yes, thank you. appreciate it. that would be helpful. thank you.

>> it's not showing up on the screen. >> okay, got it. >> [off mic] >> e, is the deck walkway? >> [off mic] >> i got it. i see. thank you. >> what height is the walkway? >> it's approximately five feet, i believe. >> five feet up? >> thank you. >> yeah, it's approximately five feet above grade.

>> [off mic] >> it's five feet. >> are you guys seeing everything clearly? >> move it up or down, i guess. better. yeah.

>> i guess we are done. are we done? >> sorry, yes? >> do you guys have any questions? >> any questions at this point? not at this point. we may bring you back. >> can the appellant come forward? >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the abatement appeals board. my name is eric jacobs.

i'm here on behalf of the property owners. there's been a long history associated with this project spanning from 2014 when the property owners first filed an application to renovate their home. they under went a 14-month planning review process culminating in a discretionary review hearing. their planning commission hearing has been rescheduled by a series of carefully crafted complaints. the heart stems from an existing walkway constructed in the early 60's. though some permit history exists, no permit has been found for the structure in question. which connects the main house to a deck over the rear garage. the property owners purchased the home with the feature in place and no complaints were never filed for the first 50 plus years of use or the first three years of ownership of the

home when the complainant was living next door. it was mentioned the previous owners didn't use the deck frequently so it wasn't a nuisance but when the new owners moved in it became more of an issue and became something of a focus. only after the filing -- [coughing] they have gone to great lengths, filed to legalize their existing deck and remove the walkway in question. so though initially the walkway was also proposed to be legalized, through discussions with planning and adjacent neighbors we are now proposing to remove the walkway which was the source of the original complaint. the permit was originally filed in 2014 and that permit has been modified over time to address the complaint and the

notice of violation. as well as the subsequent permit filed to legalize the existing deck over the rear garage located on that adjacent parcel. we would like to request time to finish our permit so that we can move forward with our discretionary review hearing, permit and complete work. so what was previously shown to you, i can put this back up. this is the 1969 aerial photograph showing the work done in 1961. the original '61 permit did show work to a rear deck. and i can show you what that area of work was. so, essentially the 1961 permit showed a portion of this deck