wondering iowa why it took place yesterday >> its hard to schedule those meetings we had the first meeting with ron last week and when this came up tuesday morning was the first valuable time he agreed to i think that monday being a holiday made it difficult. he tried to make sure that there was an opportunity to review this before today's hearing so it doesn't talk up the boards 7, 8, 9 and did the appellant join the meeting as well >> no, in fact, the meeting was there to discuss the question of 85 was the appropriate form to use and it was morphed into something how we be could assure the safety. as the letter indicates when he

understood that the entire house was sprinkled he was impressed this isn't something you usually find it's above and beyond. so when he took the totality into question he said he'd have notice problem accepting this >> when you first handed this to the appellant it's the firefighting the appellant saw it. >> yes. >> and wanting wong the matter was continued on october 9th. >> okay. thank you. >> no further questions anybody thank you for your time.

>> thank you, commissioners scott on behalf of the appellant. procedurally this is troubling to us. i don't know what the plan is. when we were here last the issue that concerns the board whether we were right you can't have a second egress over someone's property or some reason we were wrong and the answer is we were right that's not a second point of egress. apparently there is some plan that appraise for some way to deal with the existing issue it's not on the agenda. we had over a month to try to work this out and now a we're given a set of plans that maybe meets some code requirement. planning was showing them a few

minutes ago maybe there's a change of windows to doors that the gentleman says we were provided those plans months ago or weeks ago. i don't know what he's talking about. we never heard of any change of windows to door maybe this is a different set of plans. before you tonight is the permit we appealed that provided for egress over the prototype. that's innovate proper. if they have a different way to deal with this let's look at the plans i mean, you have not seen the plans until now. but to try to actually shove this down our throat but the

gentleman knows how to reach me. if there was a now a scheme being proposed we could have sat down. but it's procedurally unfair to try to ask you to vote for a special conditions permit to amend a permit of a new certificate plans >> how long will you need. >> a week. >> a week? what do we have on calendar next week? >> we have a substantial calendar next week. >> okay. let's see. what's after that december 11th

>> december 11th. >> that's a big calendar too. it is there are some combined cases that night. but still it is still a significant calendar >> new appeals 12. the 20th has 9 and the 18th has 7. the lovingly of december is terrible with 13 items >> okay. oh, sure go ahead >> sorry commissioners, i was confused about another hearing the one exit meets the dbi codes but might be ron tom made a

mistake and the one exit would be sufficient for dbi so if that's what it's about. >> i think the problem from my prospective i've hearing and things are being pass out tonight i'm not as concerned windows to doors i mean, that's not material it wouldn't trigger a new appeal period but i think having a new certificate plans that has never been shown to the other side that's it for me. >> for the exiting or the windows and doors. >> just having a new set of plans. >> we're okay with the second exit. >> no egress is required?

>> no, because of the superstitiously and the construction. no >> president wong can i ask for any public comment? my any public comment on this item?. technically no >> can i make a statement and a about what? >> about a new set of plans. >> you have to speak into the microphone. >> those are not a change in plans wisp asked to bring copies to the board members. >> okay. >> that's a determination to be made and the chief inspectors made the decision on that. the idea that the appellants need to see this.

is what. there's a letter from ron tom that says there's a new letter of egress. i'm concerned we're continuing this for another month it started last december. they said their concerns were - >> i would like you to stop arguing. okay. the copies i have >> for november 8th the letter? >> i've got it. >> thank you. >> i've got one question so the plans you handed to us is there any changes as minute as from anything they've had prior. >> no, because they've previously had copies 80 that shows the changes of the

windows. >> so increase no changes. >> don't those plans reflect the changes in the egress. >> well, it removes the need for the second needs of egress. >> the plan is changed. >> i'll let the architect speak to that are. >> the change is a change before we met in october the plans that were submitted to you and the people appealing it's the same plan showing the sliding glass doors it only has a dash line here the numbers indicate that we're less than 2 hundred and 50 feet from the further corner of the top deck. it distributes in the description of the work the removal of window and door when i met with the gentleman i

shimmed the windows changes and i understood today joe duffey said he didn't care. that's the only change otherwise we'll leave the door at the top of the landing. it would meet the egress requirements and we'll go for a revision permit to put the doors on which the planning department will have a problem with >> thank you. the plans there's no approval stamp on that; right? >> the rest of the plan that ron tom has in his file and it's not been approved. >> no, it's been approved. >> you don't i don't see a stamp. >> okay. >> when was the last date on this plan there's many dates on

it? okay. let me ask this question were those plans subject to the november 8th letter >> no, this was what the november 8th letter represents. >> prior to november 8th. >> prior to november 8th they were printed and presented to ron tom. >> to the architect? i'm the architect the specific plans >> oh, i printed in the record those today. >> when we were they drawn. >> april 8th and below it it says november 8th nifldz.

november 8th nifldz. the place page >> hold on one second, sir. >> i'm uncomfortable i'm sorry that doesn't mean everyone else is that were thank you. we're closed at this point. i'll weigh in. if what is being present is being appealable i'll have a problem this is the department decision so if not pertaining to the two egregious the department has made a decision on. so whether they have more time to review it or not that's a departmental decision >> just to clarify commissioners this is the permit before you. this is in your jurisdiction and

it's up to you to decide how you want the permit to look. the building planning department is hero to talk about the minimum requirement and your tasked to decide whether or not the provision is >> initialing i thought it would be procedurally the opportunity to let the folks look at the new plans and if a you're comfortable with them let's move forward today. >> i think the plans are new plans. i think they have been changed and a process wise it's not fair and let's look at at this and give a consideration. it could have things on it i'm not an architect but at least the architect could take a look

at it and give us their opinion on whether or not it works for them >> i agree with you but at the same time this has been going on for quite some time. if we can move into the right e i recall it calendar but if it goes on for a longer than time i'm going to make a motion today. >> for me, the issue was about the egress and the second egress and now we've been informed that's not important because of the two egregious. i don't know how significant the changed are. they claim they've been around since november 8th but i think we can get it done in the week

so mr. duffey wants to say something. i want to help people understand that - the comparison. if you look at i don't know who's brief this is it is exhibit g. so everyone sees what you just saw so everyone has the benefit of that and you can still come to the same conclusion. about midway there's a 3 dash a on the bottom right. and then if you turn to the submission we just received from the gentleman. you can see it's not the last page a-103 no, it's this one.

>> that looks different from mine. there 2a 03s. so put them side by side and you can see the difference. this the the upper level plan proposed. if i'm doing a wrong comparison correct me. >> there are 230 one. the one is before you being appealed and the one prior to that is the changed. the changes are bubble there's a big bubble and i'm trying to show you the path of egress and the door at the on top of the stairs >> i was looking did second

a-103 but the second one dated friday you can tell the plan is significantly all of the evidence and not been presented to the appellant until november 8th? >> there's no significant alternatives. >> it's like a red like that that. >> if i had a yellow highlighter i'll highlight it. >> but that's the submission. >> that's what we submitted and ron tom saw we were submitting for that the windows and doors. >> thank you for the sheet of paper. thank you >> okay. i'm visiblely it looks dramatic to me. i wanted you to see what i see.

>> commissioners what are we thinking at this point? >> well, you know, it doesn't sound to me like anyone is interested in a continuance so let's squeeze it on to our 20th calendar. being handed something that looks different for the first time today and to incorporate that into this process seems i don't think one week is prejudicial. ask mr. duffey the question again

>> did you say you were the one who noticed the change from windows to sliding glass doors. >> yes. when i saw the architect and ron tom and he was going to allow the one exit i notices the bubble around the windows and i said you've changed something from the windows to the doors and the discussion was i'm not sure. i took this went back to dbi to look at the property issue with the exiting. the reason for the letter was after our first meeting about this when ron tom was there and ron tom said i've approved this before and he met with the architect and owner after that and they set up 0 time yesterday

and as part of that meeting ron tom quid them to draw up another request and submit a letter for that meeting. that's why it was yes, i do. but i did notice a change from the windows to the doors >> it was pointed out to you. >> no i don't think anybody realizeed but certainly i noticed the change. i did speak to the gentleman at dbi about this and we discussed the exiting about 9:30 or tengs this morning but this - i did tell him dbi agreed about the

exit and they spoke with mr. ron tom yes, i do after speaking with me >> mr. t may i ask you to sit down until your called. >> you said i believe that from what you could see those changes wouldn't trigger any changes from the street and that's your criteria; right? >> the only physical change is rome one door opening basically at the top landing area to the small door to the right you would remove that door and taking a site of windows that were north phasing away from the street and changing them to sliding glass doors just changing those that's the only change. there was no change troiltd the

path of traffic only because it was determined the second one wasn't necessary. the only physical change was removing the doorway and a putting a new doorway where the windows were before and that wouldn't trigger many additional process on our part >> okay. thank you. >> i'm not to go ahead and continue that for one week to the november 20th calendar on the grounds that the appellant has not seen the new revision that was developed on november 8th. and the fact that actually dbi for the first time saw the

windows transformed to door. it may or may not be material but planning hadn't seen them in the official capacity >> we have a motion from the president to continue this motion to november 20th one week. (calling names) >> i would vote no, but not that state matters. (calling names). thank you. the vote is 3 to one so continuance that motion does not pass it's still before you. >> i guess i'll make a motion that we oh, let's see. deny the appeal well, actually grant the appeal conditioned on the revised plans that were submitted

>> today for the first time. >> that motion would require 4 votes. >> great. >> and do you want to state a basis for that. >> yes. i believe based on the letter from mr. tom the fact there are no changes i can tell from the plans and none have been pointed out to us i believe that today was the date for consideration of this matter and i don't see any prejudice to appellant from moving forward today. there's no good basis for a continuance. >> okay. so we have a motion then from commissioner to uphold this permit with revised plans. >> the november 8th.

>> the november 8, 2013, it's on the basis as stated in the record by commissioner tom (calling names) the vicinity is 3 to one for them to impose any actions so absent to any motion this permit is up told me e held as is. >> i don't think anybody wants that. i would make another motion to continue it for one week and in the interest of efficiency and justice and getting a proper permit here that everyone can

agree on. >> so we have a motion to continue this matter one week to november 20th. and no additional briefing is allowed nothing? on that motion (calling names) thank you. the vote is 4 to zero this matter is continued one week to november 20th >> thank you. thank you >> commissioners then i will call 7 a, b, c, and d. all four of them are filed by a

group against tang and they're related to four alteration permits. this is for the property on montgomery street on the partners llc to an alteration repair around doors and windowsills. this is for the property at 6568 joebz street protesting the issuance on september 12th to la violinists llc. to the bedroom replacement and install new forced air at a level down with a minimum of the height between ground floor and

first floor with matched window height. and the next is on 20th street protesting the issuance on september 18, 2013, to remodel a unit and add new closets and relocate kitchen fixtures and rerouting of mrmg and add new gas heart and finally, the next one 1 is 20th street protesting the issuance on september 20th. remodel unit 765 a add new closets and relocate kitchen imminence and rerouting lighting

fixtures as needed. those were filed by the same party we can start with the appellant. david gladstone are you in the room for the appellant? commissioners then i will ask if the permit holder is represented here together. please step forward >> good evening, commissioners john with the rubin rose on behalf of the permit holder. the four permits is minor in nature. 3 for renovation of the units and one for dry rot. the standards process the process two contractors are

licenses in construction practices in san francisco and they're here tonight. we don't have much more to add because the appellant hasn't filed a brief only unsafe demolition practices and work yoerp of the practices. i can go through the process. considering there's no justification for the four appeals we respectfully request you deny the appeal >> i have a question. when is the cost to our clients in the aggregate for the appeals filed >> this is a little bit afterward one to $2,000. >> total? >> for . >>