inches is the requirement for the guardrail on the deck. and i think it looked like it was 42 inches. i think the neighbor s reached a little higher. that s why they were easily jumping over from the other roof which they absolutely should not have been doing. that s a police department that s trespassing. we hate to hear those sort of complaints in the building department that workers are jumping across property lines and roofs. that s not good. so, i don t like to see that. but apart from that, it s a project that seems to me to meet building code and, so, any questions, i m available. just to confirm, the 42 inches is measured from the permit owner s property? yes, the walking surface of the permit holder he s property. and there s no building code requirement on the other side? no, i was looking up the code there when i had time there and i don t it talks in the code about fire walls and parapets being 30 inches, but in this case it would be 42 inches for a gu
the appellant the a ability to appeal that decision. ~ they could have also appealed the issuance of the building permit back in december, but we suspended it and allow it had to go through the d.r. process. they re before you with the release of the suspension. i would agree this is not the ideal way of handling a bbn. ideally these things are caught at the information counter. so, this was something missed by staff, but we think we have adequately addressed and gave them due process and having a discretionary review and hearing here. we respectfully request that you deny the appeal and find that there are no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances here and any matter that would require any revisions to the permit. so, with that, i m available for any questions. thank you. thank you. is there any public comment on this item? mr. duffy. i m sorry, mr. duffy, would you like to say anything? [speaker not understood]. but, of course. he has a lot to say. you ve woken
seem to knock on the property. turn the picture around and suffer. also there are other issues like dutch gutters have not been installed and several issues related to roof damage. let s see if this works. i m showing this to show how easy it is to get over this wall. these are the contractors using my roof without permission from two days. two days they ve been using it many days although i asked them many times not to. it s extremely easy. i m going to talk about liability while this is going on. investors have asserted that there is no liability issue here and it is simply an issue because property owners are not liable fortress passerses. in california that is not so clear. especially for children there is a heavy liability burden on property owners who are required to protect their properties related to attractive nuisances. you don t need to be liable to be sued. we asked the neighbors therefore to. to invest in upgrading their properties so investors can maximize their