>> 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. >> let me explain it. >> no >> both roofs slope and there is a valley there and the only way that you will be able to drain that is to put some kind of a horizontal piece right at the juncture where the valley is and then you have a rain water litter from that gutter down. well, if you want it separate, then you both have to have one, so you make a larger gutter, and you have two rain water litters one that goes to your side, and one that goes to their side. >> where was the water previously? >> it was on the one side. >> so, i mean, do you mind,

because it is the same, the water is there, it is not his water or her water, it goes to a valley and it goes to ones scupper or litter and it would just, as my fellow commissioners said, just by having two, you just have now joint liability. >> rather than just having one and >> in the future if there is a repairing issue then we have to come to an agreement. >> exactly. >> they will have to work with that. >> okay. [ speaking in a foreign lanuage ] >> he would think that too. [ speaking in a foreign lanuage ]

>> i understand sir. >> no good. >> then, two rain water litters. >> okay, so my brother is saying that right now the foundation what they have is the newly built foundation blocks where the water goes towards their property, now so all of the water going to our house. >> i am not sure that i can come to a craft and an agreement for both sides. you know? >> okay. >> go ahead and we will ask the same questions of the other

side. >> i window instead of the door. >> i guess that it is okay. i tried to save some money for my client. >> you can frame in the window in the door. >> i do have a request. that window has to meet the minimum code requirements. >> yes. and what is, you have done enough houses what is the minimum requirement. >> it depends on the type of window. >> what is it? >> probably i would put inform a double hung and it will probably require let's see, maybe somewhere between 2, 8 in roof, and 5, 6 in height. >> they got bigger in height? >> or encased i need three foot by, three buy five. either one below it in the

guardrail. they don't want a door. >> fine a window and we could do a window. and will be on the egress side. >> right. and double litter. >> that is what we want to do. that is what my client. >> you still will have joint custody over the gutter. >> okay. >> in terms of a foundation, i think that the department is already done the inspection and the engineer issues an inspection matter. >> all right. >> okay. >> you want to come back on that issue? >> okay. okay, we have a conclusion is that we will agree and accept that the pipe one pipe and then the border goes to the pipe and the sewage. >> but they are responsible for it. my parents won't. yeah. >> they want the rain water litter to tie into your drain line. >> i think that there is a

liability problem right there. i mean, >> it is half your water. >> yeah, well... >> into i interject for just one second? >> i think that is a fair proposition. i mean, as a realtor of the city and touring a lot of the properties as one of the gentleman mentioned the removal of the interior access, i have been to a lot of properties recently where a single family has become two single families. and so, the second the indication that that there is laundry on both levels, i think that your client should be gracious in this matter. >> first i am not the designer of this project and i did have a question about interior stairs because i actually that is something that i learned this time is for the

administrative (inaudible) and the interior stairs are now required for exit of the building. and he showed to me black and white. and so i say, well, fine, i have the same question as well. i hope that you answer your question. and in terms of the main water litter, that is fine. i guess. >> you will have to go to somebody's side. >> yeah. >> i like to resolve this by, accepting those five points of agreement and modifying the agreement in the following way. let me resummarize all five. my motion is going to be to accept the appeal and condition the permit 1, to accept the

revised drawings that are required as enumerated by him, and to deal with the five issues. one is that the fence will be replaced and repaired similar to the chain link fence that was there previously. two, that the permit of rain water, litter and gutter be installed at the valley coming down between the two buildings and connecting to the permit holder's storm line. three, that the exterior door on the third floor be changed

to a fire access code compliant window. four, that the structural inspection copy has been provided to all parties, the appellant and to the building department. and that the deck is three feet from the property line and that the drawings be appropriately done to reflect these. mr. duffy yes? >> >> without knowing the existing condition on the two properties, the code is pretty

clear that each property has to be responsible for its own drainage, so in san francisco that is tough because of the 0 lot lines and i don't know what the existing is and i just wanted the code does say that you have to each probably is responsible for its own. so there is no details of what was existing and no photographs. and i don't know how it existed but i assume that it did exist at one time. but i don't want to... i just want to if you are going to, outside of the code and we sometimes leave it up to people to figure it out because it is tough, if it is code compliant each is responsible for its own and we don't want it. >> you are not accepting the liability for that. >> okay, thanks. >> thank you. >> i believe that covers it, right? >> i have one question and there was a discussion about the size of the window and i don't know if you wanted to include that in your motion. >> i said that needed to be fair access code compliant

minimum required. >> it can be larger. at least the minimum required. >> i do have one question, the two permits were suspended and the first permit has not related to all of the issues that we are talking about the dorm er and the bathroom on the third floor. >> this action today resolves both appeals. >> okay. >> it was current and then he has the paint, where the pipe is... >> why don't you put it on the overhead.

>> overhead please. >> so here, that is where our sharing pipe is going all the way down. so, the pipe actually is in the junction of this property here that is why it has painted area. that is where the pipe was sitting at before they took them down. >> okay. >> who is... >> the house is my parents and the yellow one is theirs. >> okay. >> >> okay. >> sir, if you want to speak you must come up here. >> all right. then, it is likely that it is going to follow similar to the temporary one that is coming down. >> okay. >> okay. >> commissioner fung, i also wanted clarification, you referred to the revised drawings, do those drawings currently exist and if so, i would like to get some identifying information so i could refer to them in the

motion. >> i think that the drawings that were provided to the zoning administrator today, >> are they dated? >> we would actually need a copy given to us. >> yeah. >> we don't adopt the plans without a copy. >> the planning commission and if i could show on the overhead what it would accomplish in the priary concern is the portion that extends. >> the required yard is the required wall and this would be the minimum, that the city extend at 6 feet and this would be the minimum required to the code to access the stairs here to exit from the deck. >> so. and the plans are. >> are those plans, are you willing to part with those? for the purpose of resolving this? >> certain, i could share that project sponsor is willing to. >> so i will hand those over to mr. pacheco. >> i am sure that they will be

happy to send it to you. >> anything else that you need madam director? >> just a vote. >> okay. if you are ready. >> that is my motion. >> if you could call the roll please. >> these plans are... could you redate these? these are dated 20, 12, and these changes here in red? >> if i could change that. so they will be dated today, then, we have one sheet and revised plans dated 2, 20, 13 to, executed as part of the special conditions permit and thank you and we have all five of the other conditions that the fence be replaced to what existed there before. the chain link fence, correct? >> and just to specify the fence between the appellant and the permit holder. >> yes. >> and that the rain gutter,

that comes down to the valley shall drain to the permit holder's property? >> from the valley it will drain trait down the building and then connect to the permit holder's drain line. >> to the permit holder's drain line. >> okay. >> and then, that the exterior door at the third floor be replaced with a code compliant minimum egress window. >> yes. >> okay. >> and that four, that the foundation inspection report be given to all parties? >> yes. >> i believe it has happened already. >> not the building department. >> okay. >> and lastly, that the deck be set back 3 feet from appellant's property line >> that is correct. >> okay. >> okay. so we have a motion to up hold

both permits and all of these conditions attached to both or just to one? >> it is attached to the 6 b. >> to 6 b, so the permit ending in 2814. >> that is correct. >> good. >> the motion then is to up hold the permit in item 6 a as is. and to up hold the permit in 6 b ending in 2814 with those revised plans and all of those conditions as stated. >> that is correct. >> okay. >> on that motion, to up hold both permits, one with all of those changes and revised plans, president hwang? >> aye. >> commissioner hurtado is ab accident. >> vice president lazarus? >> aye. >> and commissioner honda. >> aye. >> thank you. >> the vote is 4-0 and the first permit is upheld as is and the second permit is

withheld with those revised plans and all of those changes. we are going to take a short break. yeah. >> good luck.

[break]