Construction 40 feet high. This roof in violation of planning code 134 that railing five feet from edge of building for privacy. They have the railing remain at the edge of the building and at the second of the railing parallel to the first one and violation for planning requirement. He he has three decks. The decks are directly facing our kitchen bathroom and room windows. He and his people have stood on the existing decks looking down at us and took picture of us using dirt on to our property. More decks and planter would make the problem worse. They use prior architect when he realized higher than the limit they move the line about four feet higher to manipulate to code. He concluded its three story but dbi said it is four. They did not require him to comply with code. Plan must be accurate. Permit application to disclose the scope of work but he did not. Dbi issue architect plan required him to respond. Both planning and building say as long as architect signature and not worried about the this is a good day. Washing the deck and do other things. This is the people looking at us. He is fire rating. It is not complete. No details for the column and no structure calculation. Our tenant need support. We have those. Thank you. Since i have time. I was told when we were to send to the permit holder. She is a public member. If they do i think you should be a architect here. I have a problem. Seven minutes altogether they used it for Public Comment. Thank you. We can hear from the permit holder. There are two appeals. You have 14 minutes. Good evening. My name is craig gene wood, i am the Property Owner and the permit owner. The way i am going to present is to provide you with a background in history because i think it is very important for the context of the case. Then i will talk a bit about the project and a privacy issue which is the main issue here. My architect, dean martelli of walker moody is here to answer any questions you may have with respect to height limits and grade lines. This is a picture of the property right here. My wife and i moved in to the property as renters in 2001. In 2004 we purchased the property and received multiple notices of violations. I spoke to the neighbor whose received multiple notices of violations. If you turn to exhibit c in your brief, im sorry the briefs are not tabbed. Ther there is a memorandum from the previous Zoning Administrator, larry badner, you probably have read it. I wont get into that, but the memo describes what i was trying to do for two years to comply with the multiple notices of violations. Describes the state of neighborhood relations in 2006 which were extremely strained. It describes the city action against the appellant. She put in some shed and there was a city action. Then lastly, mr. Badner highlights a number of complaints of which came before the board here. Commissioners, i dont know if the shed incident was what was the catalyst to put her on the mission to harass her neighbors in the city. Since then there are a lot of complaints and conflict between her and her neighbors this. Is her property here. The appellants profi appellantn north point. There are 84 complaints, actual notices of violations in planning Enforcement Actions on the adjacent properties to miss tsang. The fact is, commissioners, the appellant does not want her neighbor to work in or improve their properties in any way. I am going to share 3x amples. I think this is relevant to the case. She and her boyfriend, the other appellant, egregious behavior to anyone who attempts to work on their property. The first is. Face it how you would look at it, sir. The first this is a property wall at the ad jay sent neighbor to miss tsang, 767 north point. As with Many Properties this is a zero lot line situation. The rear of the property abbutts her property in the backyard. The Property Owner wanted to paint his property. He painted that property. This absolutely infuriated miss tsang. She got hergor de her garden hoh paint. It looked like this for seven years. Mr. Englewood got notices for peeling the paint on her property. It turned into an order of abatement. She would not allow access through the air space. It took him seven years. Finally, under a court order he was able to paint the wall. There is an exhibit e. I am sorry it is not tabbed. There is an email from docto doctorrenindoctorenglewood the. It is in my brief. Next this is thal appellates pink property. That is adjacent property to the west. 2666 hide on the corner owned by sandy walker, who is here. Sandy decided it is time i need to paint my property. This absolutely infuriated ms. Tsang. There was a painter in the morning. She tried to shake the painter off the ladder. The police were called and there were witnesses. Nothing happened. This is the behavior we are dealing with. Lastly, as she talked about the garage. This is a view of the corner. This is sandy walkers property here. This is ms. Tsangs property on north point. This is my property here. Now when i attempted to put in the garage, you would think that number one she was around the corner this wouldnt impact her that i would be improving the property and maybe taking a couple cars off the street. This infuriated her as well, i would dare to put a garage on my property. Her boyfriend attacked my contractor, the contractor had to get a restraining order in court, and it took me seven years to get a garage put in. Seven expensive years to get a garage put in. This brings me to the project before you today. Similar to the garage. This project will have minimal to no impact on ms. Tsang. What we are trying to do and what was approved after three andahalf long years is to take the gable roof here similar to what was done to the property next door, make it a flat roof, and put a small roof deck up top. The roof deck is an important part of the project because my children who are 8 and 12 years old and especially my 8yearold is petrified of ms. Tsang. Miss tsang is looking out the window at her. The roof would provide refuge where my daughter could be out there without ms. Tsang looking at her. The main issue that tsang is alleging the roof deck is going to invade her privacy. To give you an idea of the elevations, as ms. Tsang alluded to, this is a view from the top floor looking east. Her roofline is at the top of the base of our top floor. Privacy issues, windows are way, way below. To give you an idea about distance, this is the area where we would like to take the gable and raise the gable. It is 31 feet from her Property Line. From the gable and then with the 5foot set back for the deck, it would be 36 feet away from her property. The big privacy issues stem from these windows which are her property is perpendicular to my property. As you look back it is a solid Property Line wall with two windows, bathroom and kitchen window. The windows for whatever it is worth are nonconforming. They are there. They are operable but regardless about that, as you can see they are down below there. What we did is we had a side line view done because she is alleging we are looking down into her bathroom window from the deck above. We had two sightline windows. First was the kitchen window. As you see the bamboo there. We had to put bamboo there. Anytime the children would go in the backyard she would take pictures and writing in a notebook. This went on for years and years. We put up the bamboo. That is great, but the kitchen window is blocked. There is no view issue. Here is a side line site line study. You can see from the top floor, the new proposed roof deck looking down there is no view with the bamboo into the kitchen window. Once again, the bathroom window which is real three main point of contention here, there is a site line study conducted from that one as well, and you can see from there you cant see through the deck. There will be no view to the bathroom window from there. To conclude my architect is here to answer questions about allegations in the brief, whatever you like. The allegations are improper grade lines, it is a fabrication. As stated in our brief, given the appellants history this project is heavily scrutinized since the outset. She is involved since day one. If you look in the back of my brief, there is a timeline which in excruciating detail, details how much back and forth and all of the correspondence and what is happening for the last couple of years. The board should deny this appeal. The permit was properly issued after review by the Planning Department and the Planning Commission and increased scrutiny by the Building Department. Thank you very much for your consideration. I am happy to answer any questions and the architect is happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Mr. T. I am really interested to hear what you are going to say. Good evening again. The subject property here is 2650 to 2652 hide straight in rh3 zones district with two unit district 1902. They filed th the knowledge pert july 8, 2016. It was revised to respond to comments from the preservation and residential design advisory teams. Neighborhood notification pursuant to 311 was conducted in november and december of 2016. One of the current appellants filed for review during that notification period. A joint hearing was held on april 27th of 2017 to hear the review and variance cases. The Planning Commission took the review by 41 vote and required the roof set back 5 feet from the northern and eastern walls to provide privacy to the neighbors. The Planning Commission determined it was consistent with the planning code and design lines. They granted the variance on may 11, 2017. No appeal was filed to the variance. The issues raised for the subject permit were raised during the review. In the interest of time i will not address each issue. However the Planning Commission and Zoning Administrator determined the project consistent. Found nothing in the briefs to question thos determination determination. The acoopsee of the plan the accuracy of the building story. It is defined in the code and interinterpreted by the Planning Department. I am available for any questions you may have. Inspector duffy. Jill duffy dbi. The knowledge permit was a form three. That was taken for intake. It was filed on the eighth of july 2015. Issued on the 20th of november 2017. It was reviewed as you heard. We had building plan checked. The fire department. It will be approved as well. It looks like code compliant. I dont see anything from Building Code issues that would be anything to worry about that i saw. In regards to the heights and the elevations and surveys. That is responsibility of the design professional. We will expect it was done professionally and that is where we are with that. Obviously people do bring that type of thing up. It is sometimes prudent to get a survey done to make sure everything ask accurate. That is done by alonged surveyor. The most recent one was the garage permit that is signed off and cfc issued. I was involved in that. Miss tsang was down to the departments and we made plans available and let her have comments. If she had complaints we addressed them. There was a cfc issued. There was a number of i counted 28 complaints on the property filed going back to 1997. 2004 there was an increase right up to march of 2017, all complaints have been closed. I am available for questions. The appellant was concerned that the survey was not produced when in fact she claimed that the survey was done. Should we be worried about that . I wouldnt be. I mean we have to be professionals for this type of thing. It is not something that dbi require for a Building Permit. We have had one. One case before i think was broderick street where the architect got that wrong and closed caused a lot every hearings. It is for the architect. Maybe in rebuttal you could bring that up. If there is discrepancy we could ask for a survey. I know there is a lot of work. The garage was done and i cant imagine that would have been brought up at that point. I am not sure why it is brought up now. The question is the number of floors and the count dbi. Can you explain that . Well, on the Building Permit it is three stories and basement. There is a drawing in the plans for the grade plate addressed by the Building Code. Dbi planned check that it was three stories over basement. That is determined at the time of the plan check. It is on the drawings. I didnt look at it real fully. I plan it checked out. Good question for the architect as well. I heard the requirement that a four story knowledge has to be structurally upgraded. I am not sure what that means. There was no code section provided with that comment or in the brief. The building does have a brandnew foundation with new garage. Maybe the appellant could provide a code section where that has to be upgraded. It is in the brief that shows that there is a great grade plain. That terms story or basement. Iit is a three story with one basement. Does this mean it is sprinklered at this point . I believe the garage would have been sprinklered at one level. Thank you. Any Public Comment on this item . Good evening, commissioners. I am here as a neighbor as well as an architect. You said Public Comment. You are a paid agent of the permit holder . Yes, my associate can answer better questions than i can. I think you have a financial interest. Tough three minutes you have three minutes each. This is from the picture. They took a picture. How can they say you cannot see it . We also have two windows. The third one is the lower unit. I showed that to you here. It says three story and four story. The plan in the Building Department has a note that says this is existing 12 feet. It is not a basement. It is a story. The planning asking them five feet. They put a railing. The rails is five feet from the edge of the building. Now they have the other two. One is the edge of the building, one is the parallel to that. You have two railings and they put the plan in those things. Those two railings. It is not one railing. It is two railings. They have been attacking me. The court order him to put the bond with the court. Comply with the law. He says he has easement. He doesnt have easement. This is two pages of court order. This is a long one. This gentleman said that i sprayed water. I never did that. They say there is red paint on the wall to our property. The city has the violations. This is not the issue. You talking about relationship. They are complaining about me recently. They still are complaining. They just come in to the inspector. He says no violation. They are talking about tenants listening in the buildings that complain, too. They should not complain when they do illegal things. I believe it is not accurate. You can see it is against the code. Thank you very much. Any rebuttal . Thank you. This is amazing to me. He admits he got the notes of violations and the neighbors got notices of violations. You are doing something wrong when you get a notice of violation. There is something going on that is wrong. What bothers me is the City Building and Planning Department they shift the responsibility to the private sector. They can take a pencil and do what they want on the drawings and tell you everything is fine, and you guys are eating this. It is unbelievable. He said i had a problem with one of his contractors. That is the one the Police Department did not believe his story. I think it is the same contractor that the plans for the garage were an existing garage and unexcavated area. One day we are inside and miss tsangs building is vibrating. They are 80 feet away excavating under the building without a permit. That is when the doa commissioner come out and said the plans were false and put a stop work order and went from there. Lets see what else. Right now, too, here is the code right here. How they are supposed to measure, and according to their measurement, again, they are short from here to here they are short. The slope is way off. It is really short. The measurements are short. The slope is off. The grade line is off. If they dont produce the survey they are using t to support thi. There is something wrong. Unbelievable. I ask the inspector for the code that shows they can backfill the property to raise it up so they can when they alter an existing structure they can get around the four story and change it to a three story. He told me to look at the california Building Code chapter two and definition of grade plain. I asked again. He hasnt responded. He wouldnt provide the code. They are architects. They can change what they want and say it is fine. They are going to support them and you guys are going to vote okay that is fine. Thank you. Mr. Greenwood, you have no rebuttal . Okay. Anything further from the department . Can we ask the question please . I would like to ask the project architect. We have the project architect come forward. You have a question for the permit holder, is that right . Sure. It doesnt count against your time. Since you have no rebuttal you can have your people speak on your behalf first and ask the questions. It is your choice, right . Thank you very much. My question related to the question related to the question raised by the appellant with regard to the site survey and lack thereof and their request that it be provided to them and then a lack of their ability to get the site survey. Can you clarify. Is there a site survey . Yes. What would be the reason you wont share it . Well, yes, we did have a survey performed by kca surveyors in the city of San Francisco on brannon street. Per the request of the Planning Department, Planning Department did not ask to have the survey submitted to them nor did dbi, but they ask that the survey results be incorporated into our drawings which we have done. We did not what i received from the surveyor was a computer cad file with all of their information. The last permit was for an event pipe closer than three feet to the Property Line and we ended up writing that up and mr. Greenwood came in special got the perm