issues are the ones that commissioner fung clarified, 3 and 4? from your perspective? >> yeah. yes. >> okay, so everyone is good on what was proposed and you have a mutual agreement on the property line, the deck, and its location relative to the property line? the second is the fence. there is... that is agreed to? there is mutual agreement on the fence the replacement and then, just three is four, the commissioner fung clarified? and five was the foundation inspection report. that was provided but only recently. >> i have about a week ago. so... >> yeah. >> okay. all right. >> and number five will be submitted to the building inspection permit. because they will not find the permit without the inspection submitted. >> okay, thank you. >> all right. >> mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez, the planning department. i will be brief. just note that this is another project that has multiple permits, there were five permits that were issued for the property in 2012. and there are issues with the permit and that they are not code complying. the expansion of the storage area, that was shown as the existing condition on the earlier permit. that would require section of the neighborhood notification and also the size of the stairs that they have in the rear area is encroaching into the yard and would require a variance. that side before the hearing, to speak with him and would not require a notification and not require a variance and corrected the issues with the ground floor rooms on the earlier plans it showed two full bathrooms and a laundry room even though the floor above also had laundry and the plans that he showed were much more simple and complied with all planning cold requirements and that is all that i have to comment on. >> what was the first one? >> the story room at the ground floor behind the garage required notice. >> and now, the drawings that he showed you, then are reflected in the plans that were the revised plans that was the basis of the second? >> there are some differences in that, the plans that he showed me, it is about the landing is getting smaller and you can have this stair and landing and the required rear yard, but it is only the minimum landing required but it was a gracious landing you could call it a deck and so that was reduced and anything else of the grand floor looked different. >> when did he show this to you? tonight? >> i just noticed before the hearing. >> and those are not the bases of any permit at this point? >> no, they are different from the plans that are before you on appeal. >> we have a resolution, we can accept those as a change to the permit then? >> yes. >> and so, you know if you would like to do that tonight or continue this item and have revised plans submitted for a week in advance to have time for everyone to consider that. >> that might not be as complicated. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. duffy? >> commissioners. just i started to read the brief from this one it looked like you were looking at the plans and it looked like there were problems with them but moving along and as you get into the later plans it seems to rectify some of the things that i was concerned for the existing conditions that were shown that have now been clarified and the third floor deck you know getting removed was definitely something that should have been done. and i think that they are moving in the right direction. our department did get contacted early on in the process, in july as a matter of fact and we did issue a notice of violation which triggered the additional permits and i know that we are permitting but some of the permits were required because of the notices of violation or complaint numbers and on the foundation work and the foundation work was inspected by dbi staff. and we give okay to pour and i have received the inspection and so i am available with any questions. one other concern that i have just real quick is the door going to the unoccupied roof we need to make sure that it is code compliant in that a child could not get through that and things like that. so there are code requirements i think that speaking to the architect they are going to address that. but a door going to a roof needs to have a code compliant guardrail 42 inches high and stuff. >> as far as you are concerned, the revisions address the issues that you would have had. >> the issues building code wise, yes, that i think mr. sanchez wants stuff done for planning and working towards getting that. but we are moving in the right direction with the additional permits. >> okay. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> step forward. >> thank you, my name is john cats and i am a neighbor of appellants and i leave at the house next door. i filed some or one are two of the earlist complaints on this property and i am here just to really validate and verify the appellant's case about frankly the egregious behavior of the contractor and i aappreciate his attempt to try to rectify it but i think that the board should know and hopefully the dbi will know that this particular behavior was not just disrespectful of the neighbors, as you have heard, but as of your authority and the authority of the building department as she pointed out, the contractor when faced with complaints about doing work well beyond the initial permit that he filed then proceeded to file false permits with dbi. he got a permit, work continued, and only when we started to realize that wait a minute this is going to be a huge edition in the back that did not have 31 notice and we looked at those plans and he said that all of this work that i have done was existing. and we pointed that out in the initial appeal here but we also brought photographic evidence and affidavits from numerous neighbors that have been through that house that that was not existing work and we brought it to dbi and they didn't do anything. i think that maybe they said, oh, it is on appeal so we will let the appeal boards handle it. but to me, that somebody falsifying documents that are going before the city. and i don't know that there was any sanction on that at all. so, i hope that you understand the extend to which her family and the people that live in the neighborhood. we want the house fixed up they have not touched the place in 40 years. but we don't want people running rough shot over the process and over the neighbors, and frankly getting away with it. in doing the background work for this appeal i looked at this guy and he has done 75 properties in the last two years. i looked at 40 of them, and clicking on each thing, half of them had complaints for building work beyond the permit and i don't know how many novs. >> so, i just hope that you will take into account our concern about the lack of trust that has been built up about the poor dealings with the neighbors as well as the city. and really give the appellant the benefit of the doubt that we want really strong conditions put on this permit so that it is enforcable so that both the contractor and the dbi and planning are held accountable do what is the right thing. >> thank you. >> sir, you made one statement there that said initial appeal here? >> the initial appeal that was filed in november. i'm sorry in october was to a permit that was dated at the end of september. and then, >> i got confused. >> you never heard it and we had filed it and so dbi had seen that we filed it. >> got it. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> president and members of the board, my name is hooper and i serve as the president of the association. and i am here to draw to your attention a few items regarding this. one item is that there is a continuing situation in the city where the people, the builders, the contractors unnecessarily start work without permits or start work well beyond the scope of the permits. and it is completely unnecessary. it puts the department, in the wrong step and it also there are cases where people just refuse entry, as you heard in the first appeal tonight, refused entry to the properties. the inspectors for the sake of the electrical, plumbing, structural are unable to gain access to a building and then you go through a notice of violation. all of this was unnecessary. these properties in many neighborhoods in san francisco need to be improved. they need to be renovated. nobody is arguing anything about that. we want that to happen. we want family to come in to structures that are modern so that we can maintain our neighborhoods. unfortunately, and in this particular case, we had a builder who wants to extend past the permits or work without the permits and it drives people nuts. it makes the individuals in the neighborhoods and the neighborhood associations all look out and say, well what is supposed to happen? aren't the building inspectors supposed to do something about this? and we can't begin to understand what the process can be. people get angry, about it. and they lose faith. so, all of necessary permits that are coming to you, that is what it is about. it is that people want to have faith in the process, but without somebody holding people accountable it is not working. in particular for this permit, i was going to ask if you could ask the building inspection why a building with an existing interior staircase will no longer have an interior staircase? they have improved the rooms and extended the rooms on the basement level, true? >> and the woman who lived there was wonderful, she was a wonderful neighbor and she was there for in excess of 60 years. but, the place needed to be renovated, but even she needed an existing interior staircase and many people in the neighborhood, many of these homes did not have original staircases in the interior and here is a building that is not going to have one. and i don't see how you consider it a full living unit in an rh 1 without maintaining an interior staircase. if you want to go to the basement, you go out the front stairs or the house it seems strange. >> there is a statement about that. i will let the permit holder address it. >> any other public comment? >> seeing none, then we will take rebuttal starting with the appellant. you have three minutes of rebuttal. or you actually have six minutes of rebuttal because of the two appeals. >> okay. there is one question that is really bugging me is that what happens to a contractor or to whoever files false plans to the department and get approved? what can we do? if there is nothing happening if they did not intend to my parents property, whatever they have done on the property get away from it. because the nov is corrected? by having the permit, which it is minimum permit that they apply for, whatever they wanted to do. but they do, way beyond what it has done. so, who is guarding this? anybody where can we go that? it is frustrating. >> it is not us, we are dealing only with the permit. >> it is frustrating >> i understand. >> and for the inspectors with four nvo on hand and can she stop the work and inspect the house? what happened to it, why is someone filing the nov? you know? but with the four nov on hand they still be able to work if they inspectors at that time stop the work and find out what is going on, we probably would not be here and talk about and we are saying how much set backs and they were saying three inches and i was saying two foot and we are arguing if the inspectors at the time when the first nov filed they gained access and received the whole picture of how the room looked like and then how come, she can't get any access to the building and just an nov on it? >> what is the nov for? >> i have all of those questions and i don't understand it. >> yeah. >> so i just hope that for the set back, 3 foot, i accept that, for the fence, the previous one is chain fence, i don't know what their propose to 6 or 4 foot, we have not talked about. >> they proposed 4 feet. >> okay. >> 4 feet, 6 chain link. >> that is what. >> and my father, he just come up right next to me about the second floor deck, the deck guardrail is about 30 inches or 36 inches. but now, the new one is 42. so can they remain as 36? or it has to... >> the only one on the third floor blocking the door. >> for that one, i absolutely i am not going to accept that. >> you are not going to accept that? >> i am not. >> and the person behind theirs they cannot make that because she has to work and her family cannot accept that. they want me to pass a message that the new fence that they built on connection of their properties they feel like they are the fence has been over two inches towards their property. so, i don't know whether i should put them into attention to that or not. because they don't speak english either. so for the seniors surrounding us they don't speak english and don't know the rights and there is nothing that i can help them with. so, i just hope that the department can take a little bit more attention to it. >> okay. >> regarding the foundation, i am willing to look over it because i have not seen it yet, so... >> all right. so as far as you are concerned, the one issue then is how to block that door? >> yes. >> and what is it about... right now there is no railing around the entire deck. and they put a guardrail at the door to prevent anybody from falling through it. >> right. >> now... >> is that door going to be approved at the city planning department? >> i don't know. i believe that it is already been, it is part of the permit set. we will ask them that question. but i am trying to figure out what it is about it that you don't agree to? >> on the third floor, if they come out from the deck, they can see us completely. >> the deck is no longer available because there is no rail. >> but they have a door they will be able to access to the outside on the third floor if they have a door i am sure that they are going to come out somebody. >> there is a door but they are putting a 3 foot-6 inch guardrail in front of that door so the only way that you can get on to it would be to jump over the rail. >> but i don't know where it is going to be. >> it is right next. >> is it surrounding. >> it is right in front of the door. >> i believe that is what i heard. >> we will verify that. but does not that satisfy you. >> the problem is that she has not seen these drawings. >> i have not seen these drawings. >> and she cannot make a decision on the fly. >> i am trying to ascertain exactly. >> i will have to ask my parents opinion about that. >> okay. >> let's hear from the other side. thank you. >> >> i would like to show the board the approved elevation how this things works. here is the door and the guardrail blocking is six feet high and now if you look at the two windows next to it. >> that guardrail is right in front of the door. and >> and the door opening. >> and the door opens in. >> it opens in. so basically the door is serving a purpose of a window and second, it is a rescue window. next to it does not qualify as a fire rescue window. and only this one would qualify. if we have to change a window, it will be almost the same size or even bigger encased window. or a hung window which is probably 6 foot high in high. so, it is the same as the guardrail and so if we put a guardrail and somebody want to go out there they have to really jump out there or climb up there. so i don't see any difference between the window and the door right there. and all of the way we will be removing and so you can see from this approved plan. it was approved already. >> okay. >> and in terms of the fence, i just want to correct that this is possibly 4, foot. which matches the height of the existing fence, there is still a portion of the existing fence, behind the new fence, so what we would do is we would try to match the same height and the same style, and this is my proposal. >> do you have anything that you want to say? >> no. >> >> anything more from the departments? >> mr. duffy? >> >> commissioners i want to comment on the issue. we did receive the complaints and in fact mr. cats made the complaint and we did act on it as best as i can see from the paperwork. if people are not happy with the way that we respond to complaints we are open every day and you can come down here and speak to a supervisor or a deputy director. we do answer to that. i also see that the permit or the appellants did come in and meet with our deputy director and from what i am reading we did respond and take the necessary action and they did come in and address it. people do work with the permit m san francisco and exceed to the scope and we can only deal with the complaints as we get them and i think that we did in this case and it is very hard to keep everybody happy sometimes. but from what i can see, everything was done. i mean, maybe they exceeded the scope of the permit, that is what happened and we did issue a notice of violation and they did get the permits. thanks. >> thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i will jump in. i'm not comfortable taking action on this. i feel that there is a proposal that is floating around out there to kind of resolve the issues and i don't think that there is complete agreement and i would feel more comfortable if it were in writing my inclination would be to continue the item? >> i feel similarly. i think, yeah, if it is in writing and both parties have an opportunity to really understand what the other is trying to do here, and also, with respect to the foundation inspection report, i think that no one has really had adequate amount of time to review that. i would concur. >> yeah. >> i would agree with my fellow commissioners. i'm glad that the san francisco board of realtors can supply photographs that are able to help this board. being a proud member of that. i'm not quite in agreement. i would like to resolve this if we can. the one remaining item i was not sure about was the guardrail at the door. what happens i could ask her back up and ask her another question related to that and see if we could resolve this rather than bringing everybody back again. >> it appears from the briefs that were provided both sides that they have had a number of communications back and forth. so it is not like it was just... and if we could come to an agreement that they both understand and accept, i would like to let them go on with their lives. >> i agree, if you look at the door it is not much effort to replace that door with a window. why have a door that actually does not enter or exit into nowhere? it does not mix make a lot of sense to me personally. >> of course, of course. yes, yes. >> mr. honda i don't understand why there is a door there that you don't really use. >> [ speaking in a foreign lanuage ] >> i leave that originally it was a deck and there was a rail around it. >> that was... when they were doing the work those were the permits. >> you asked the question and i am just responding to that. >> you asked the question, why is there a door there. >> and i am just saying there is a door there because there was a deck. >> i thought that you were telling me that was the existing. >> no. >> i got you. >> my question to you is that if the perimeter of the deck, the former deck had no longer a guardrail, so it is not legal for somebody to be out there, except for main nens purposes. >> so the two windows are going to remain and the windows are going to remain. i am going to ask you if that is acceptable that is that is the door now has a permanent guardrail on the outside of it so people cannot just walk through. they have have to climb over the guardrail to access the deck. >> isn't that dangerous, i don't care how high the guardrail is going to be, it is a door that can be climbed over. >> right. >> for the safety. >> just let me explain a little bit about what the architect is saying. >> okay, the residential code requires you to have an egress on the windows. and they have to be of a certain size to are code legal, or code approvable. >> okay. >> what he is saying that the size of that window is probably going to be some what close to the width of this door and the height of that is going to be 60 inches, but i think that it is less than that. in terms of the dimensions of allowable fire access window. so, if it is a window, it is still going to be relatively large. >> my point is that before they claimed whatever the new work is that they have done they have the door and the windows but existing there is only one window. they don't touch anything at that time or if they apply, for the first permit, then we probably would not each even talk about this. am i correct? >> i think that is passed water over the dam. >> could i jump in here? >> we are trying to resolve this and trying to find out if it is going to be satisfy. so if it really bothers you to have the door and for your parents to have the door. >> it does not bother me, to my understanding it is not safe. i am going to explain to my father about what we are discussing. >> okay. [ speaking in a foreign lanuage ] >> he said still there is a door there. >> if there is a window there. [ speaking in a foreign lanuage ] >> he said that the window will be okay and even the person across them are not agreeing with the door and because there is one door and two windows. >> understood. and we will ask the other side whether they buy that. >> rain water litter, you want a separate one? >> i don't really understand. >> let me explain it.