present our agreement to the board, so that to ensure all of the work that they are doing is enforced. especially we want to clarify that they have agreed one they want and they are going to return the lower level of the home to its original configuration which including removing the addition that stretches to our property line and replacing with the deck with vacant space underneath with 3-foot set back from our property line. and second, they agreed that they are going to remove doors on the deck on the third floor and the third is they are going to replace the rain gutter, the common gutter, splitting their run off between the two properties. number four, they agreed that they are going to repair and replace a new fence for

appearance between our properties. number five, it is about the foundation. we actually asked them many times about the foundation inspection report as they were telling us that the foundation report is a third party inspection that normally it will be submitted to the building department at the end when they are completing the whole work. which but we still have the concerns. so, at the hallway before the meeting he was telling me that he just got the report last week. so we have not got a chance to see any of that. so we want to see the report and make sure that they are doing a proper work with the permit. >> and then the lastly, i wanted to point out one thing is that it seems that the contractor is doing the work with the pattern that they don't get any permits to start the work and then, once there

is a neighbors complaint and then they go and file the permits. and with the situation that we are having with them, it really costs my parents a huge stress in the past six months, they take down the rain gutter and they did not put any one or temporary one on until we mentioned it to them. so my parents have to wake up 2:00 in the midnight to double check whether the water is damaging anything or not. so i was just thinking that they really disrespected my parents and hopefully that they are going to apologize to my parents, especially a few days back, when i was talking about this situation, my father mentioned it that the contractor yelled at my father, my father was asking them can they lower down their working noise? they just used very rude verbal to yell at my father.

so, now he is afraid of coming out of the house because he does not want to see them. know they are doing something wrong and doing the work without permit and here they are giving very rude attitudes towards the seniors, they are 80 years old they cannot stand the way that they are trying. in the beginning when they start doing the work, they are very friendly. yeah. >> so, to conclude, i just hope that the board can consider all of the agreements that we have to agree upon. thank you for your time. >> let me make sure that i understand. you have arrived at an agreement with the permit holder? >> they are the ones that resolved from your point of view for my understanding. >> that your parents have. >> therefore if they confirmed that, there is a basis of an

agreement. those five points. >> yes. >> great. >> thank you, the permit holder can speak now. >> president, members, my name is gabreil english i am the architect with the permit holder mr. lay and sir i was talking to the inspect or and i think that one of the points here. and as far as i know the point is like one is the fact the second one is the door on the third floor to be closed. and the third floor and the rain water problem and the fans and so, i think that i missed the last point.

>> the foundation. okay. >> the special inspection report. >> sure, yeah. >> i have some e-mail communication that was within last few days and i just wanted to present the commission what is the result of, i mean, back in the fall. >> could you summarize it? i don't... >> i read a lot of e-mails. >> basically we try to propose to set back the deck, three feet from the property line, that is the main issue. >> did you provide this to the appeal? >> not yet, i just print it out today. >> it is e-mailed back and forth, with the apell lant? appellant. >> the e-mail communication. >> the second issue is the fan. deeply on the fan to replace it

and the same 6-foot fans and i found that the fans were 4-foot high and so we will revise the permit application or put in a new application to change it to 4-foot chain link fence because it was a chain link fence because we are going to replace or repair as required. the third thing that we have and the third thing that we have right here is the rain water litter. the situation is the rain water litter is one litter comes down, shared by two buildings. and it is this charged to the appellant's property. on the plan we replace the rain water litter and my client, tell me that they would like to split it into two.

and when that company did it, the one, and going to out, probably. and at the moment they accept this or not. and the let's see... the door on the third floor, on the last plan we submit, the one that the second appeal, we put in, we put the door in and no, we kept the door but we put our three-foot high in front of door because the clients say that the door is already done and they don't want to tear down and repair and put in a new window while that portion is already completed. so this is what we propose, it is on the plan and it is on the plan. and in terms of the foundation, i do have the engineer inspection letter right here.

the notice and i don't know if you want to look at it or not. i could give you one copy to the appellant. >> maybe i should keep a copy to the inspector too. >> the excavation and we filled up with the plan and the first plan it was approved not related to this appeal, it should be, sorry, i didn't mean... 2012, 08/06, 6584, that was the original foundation plan and that is the detail. and the detail d and it is a

four-inch slab with two inch sand and two inches gravel. and that has become six inches and on the other plan, it strictly only, two, and it is 2012, 08, 13, 7241, that basement remodeling that is another we said that the ceiling height. and so i would say that probably they have to keep a 7-foot 6 ceiling and they need to excavate and the plastic and the sand because it is a very old building and that is probably i think that it is about two inches only. so it add up, i don't know, ten inches or nine inches, because i never measure it. and i was not the architect for this job to prepare this plan. so i have no idea, but, from

looking at the plan, that is required, excavation. yeah. so, i guess we are just already. so this will be our proposal and we will we are willing to submit a revision, not a revision, a new permit to adjust those items. >> except the door. >> okay. >> did you accept splitting... there is a question of putting in a common gutter but two rain water liters? >> one goes to your side for half of it? >> yeah. >> and the other goes to their side for half of it? >> yeah. >> all right. which does not make too much sense, but it does create one thing it creates equal liability for keeping the gutters clean.

i told my client, because it comes from one area. so it does not matter, split. >> you have a value that there the two drain to the same location. >> all right. we will ask them the same question. >> and your other change is that you were saying instead of removing the door, on the third floor, you are providing a guardrail there so nobody can exit through. >> correct and on the permit, the second appeal permit, already just we put in a 42 inches guardrail outside of the door. and all of the deck rail was removed. >> okay the exterior railing was removed, also? >> it will be removed on the permit. we cannot do anything, because the permit is being appealed. >> you can't go out there. yeah, i got you. >> let's see, we will hear from them, too. >> are you finished with your

presentation? >> i guess so. >> i just before you sit down, so as to the points 1 and 2, there is no issue, the only 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