feel that the permit. they are not legally bound to put up citing and that is why i asked you to revoke the permit because there's something that says they should put up citing rather than saying that they don't really have to, and i think that they should have to because of their fiscal we don't want to look at this kind of wall. >> when you offered to pay for the materials, what did you think this would cost you. >> $1,500. >> i have asked whether or not before you were asked about whether or not you would deny this?

>> i never met with mr. donnelly on the denial of access issue. course can use state clearly and emphatically, are you willing to grant access to your property? >> absolutely as long as it provided me with proof of insurance. the one some proof of insurance. also one time line so that this will be on the property for months. i understand the scaffolding with block access to my backyard. >> you want to know how long the scaffolding will block access? >> correct. >> i would assume that that is standard.

>> of my neighbors brought up that i had complaints from the contractor that he had damage to the copper tap on my property. this cannot be replaced because of the way this has been building up. this is not under your jurisdiction. >> i think it is already stated that as the walls stand now, this is not allowed. some sort of product has to go up there. i don't know what we would gain new by overturning this. >> i guess you're right. right now, the way this permit stands is that there are a lie

it to leave the wallace pressure treated plywood -- allowed to leave the wall with pressure treated plywood. >> what is up there now? >> unless this is revoked, the wall would say such. >> i think we go back to the point where if the permit is revoked, the financial burden on lisa and catherine. that is not an equitable results. i think that he has made a fair

and equitable solution. i've spent a considerable amount of time and energy trying to get these parties together. if you deny the appeal, i am very confident that these parties will reach the appropriate agreement. that is why i asked you to deny this. thank you. >> just to clarify a few things. if this from a stance, they will be allowed to retain the plywood sighting. yes, this is a requirement of the residential design

guidelines to have finished sighting. the permit itself was granted initially because this was represented to the department that the permit holder could not gain access to their property from the adjacent property owner in order to install the siding. the neighbor does not restrict access and the board has very clearly found that out. it seems like it comes down to a matter of finances. generally if you are building an addition and you're putting up siding, the property owner must bear those costs. if the board would overturn those permits, the original permit withstand. this might be possible based on the testimony of the appellant.

it seems like that might be the best resolution to overturn this permit and to require the original citing to be installed. the only recently approved a permit is that we were told that the permit holders did not have access. >> do we have the original permit? >> i don't know that we have it. i think there are copies of the approved plan that have been shown >>

that have been shown. >> we definitely have that requirement. >> does it say painted sighting? >> the standard is to have citing that would be matching the rest of the building. that would be the standard requirement. >> if we were to uphold the wall would stay, >> this hold a permit. >> this was still have to be painted. >> no, it would be able to remain as it is. the reason that we approved that permit is because it was represented to us. >> i have a copy of the permits which can answer your question.

would you like to see this on the overhead? there's not only the elevation but also detail. this does not say "painted citing." >> i'm trying to figure out what the permit holder originally agreed to. the first one shows a slight elevation on the building. it shows the horizontal citing but it doesn't say whether it is paying -- painted and i can show you a couple more.

>> that would have gone out in the notice. here it is the detail on the exterior wall. this is the wall. it shows an exterior plywood. you would imagine this is the current state.

on top of that, over two layers of building paper, you can see the exterior elevations for the plastering system where there is plastered. this detail shows the same thing with those for two buildings. it does not say how it will finish. >> those could be unfinished? >> well, it could be. i don't think that there is any code requirement. >> i think that this is a nicer finished because of the horizontal verses plywood. >> does it seem reasonable for

someone to speak with one party involved in the issue to determined to deny without having spokesperson not having spoken to the person? >> we deal primarily with the permit holder. the work is to be done by that person. we don't ordinarily go around and talk to the neighbor's claim fuhr -- to the neighbors sa.

what is before us is not the question whether the citing should go up, what is before us is the issue that access was not formally denied. the question is whether access would be allowed or whether there would be in a pattern of

delay or old problems. i think that's the problems are reflected in both parties. i did not see from the permit holders brief any documentation that had an urgent need to provide access. delong e-mails that went back- and-forth, i don't think that there was an intended solution. people need to look at their finances and get final approval.

the issue there is to paris culpability. we should require that the siding to be put up. this is a framework for whether there is some level of cost. >> there used to be a commissioner on this board who occasionally would repeat the words of rodney king, why can't we get along? he has since moved on to planning. the children should have been barred from this hearing because they are having to watch adults acting badly. this is a surge. the fact that these parties

cannot solve this problem. -- this is absurd. i don't know how to view the fact that there was an offer to put up $1,500. is this an indication of working this out? the way i feel about this right now is that we could overturn but i don't think that this will get us very close to the solution. i think we would get closer to a solution if it were to retain jurisdiction and instruct these parties and get feast people to act like adults. they should come back to us at

some point with a statement that this has been worked out and i will grant access to the permit holder and this will go forward and whatever compensation is made by one side of the other is not really our business or affair. >> i agree with what has been said. >> there is a notion of the property owner is doing work to her home and it looks like the original notice did include citing --siding.

if you would prefer painted, that really needs to fall on the property owner. i am trying to think of a solution but i don't see the party is working this out on their own. i was more inclined to require the appellant to come up with $59 and the rest to be borne by the permit holder. >> i don't think that we can do that. i think it is reasonable to let her know that she is covered. if there is any liability, we will have this in writing and we will know this going forward. we are going to be on your property and we would like to be

there for this amount of time. it is very reasonable. i don't know how we can figure this out, to ask them to come up with these kinds of issues. >> i think we need to provide more of a starting point. if the offer was made, i would like to have that considered. if i was going to be on this side, this amount of siding, i could probably get this done in a week. the permit holders will get a time frame that is probably two weeks or less. each party knows exactly what is going on.

>> you left out the issue having to do with insurance. >> that is no problem. >> i would make a motion. we would continue this matter, we would ask the party would a reasonable date to come back. the things that this board has asked for having to do with insurance or time lines, i guess this is still some issue. this will address the issue of access to the backyard. then for the appellants to indicate whether the $1,500 is still on the table. hopefully all of these things will be worked out and sometime soon they will come back and the

neighbors will not suffer from a series visual blight. can you let us know how much time this would require? >> my suggestion would be to continue the hearing until november 3rd. then everyone can reach an agreement and to perform under that agreement. by that time, we can have the citing up-- siding up. we want to make sure that there are no additional costs or

expenses. >> if the parties come to an agreement, the appeal could be withdrawn as well as the permit. >> i don't think any other word can go forward. >> well, no work can go forward on this particular permit. >> or this could be withdrawn. >> i say we postpone this until next week to get the conversation going and over with.

>> it stands, i would still pay for the cedar siding. >> that is for you all to work out. knowing that you cannot do the work, is next week too soon? >> the note -- the next opportunity is october 13th. >> i cannot come that week

because i have work commitments. i want the board to just deny the permit. >> we cannot do this. >> the 13th does not work for me. >> the 25th? >> the 24th. >> you will come back and say you have an agreement? >> that would work. >> i would like to entertain october 6th. >> that would be alright. >> madden director, we would put to this earlier.

>> are we hearing arguments or are we just having a report on the status of the negotiations? >> i appreciate the question. i think that if they come back and did not reach an agreement, we should throw this to the board. do we get to vote on the issue at that time? >> this is in obtaining additional briefing or comments or arguments from the party? >> i think that is correct. this is a yes or no answer. >> no additional briefing, no additional arguments. your motion is to move this to october. >> they should be allowed to submit whatever forms of agreement whether they are in

agreement or not. >> if one side is totally unreasonable, i don't know that there would be an agreement in place. >> part of this is limited. >> we can limit them to three minutes. >> the slaves problems because of the adjustment that oral presentation hopefully they will just come and say that we have reached an agreement. >> i would rather see -- if the two sides realize that they cannot come to an agreement, we will. >> here is the agreement, i did not mean we've reached an agreement, see you later, we're going to have a drink together. >> do you want to see the

proposals? they don't reach agreement whether there is counterproposals. >> those would do the thursday prior. i would entertain a short page limit. >> they can get it done in three pages. >> >> we have a motion from commissioner garcia to continue this until october 6th for the parties to discuss settlement and if this is not reached, they my estimate of 23 pages of their proposal on the thursday prior to hearing. they are also able to submit their agreed upon settlement. on that motion --

>> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> calling item number7, 10-078. this is protesting the issuance of a permit to alter a building, voluntary structured upgrade on ground floor, at concrete sheer wall at ground-floor and replace foundation only. we will start with the appellant as soon as the room is cleared.

>> good evening. i will speak very briefly and then allowed the tenants who are here to actually talk about why we are here. in a nutshell, we don't oppose the seismic upgrades of the building and are seeking conditions to protect the tennis from eviction either through making the work conditions so intolerable that they move voluntarily or that they are served some kind of notice of determination and they're camped out indefinitely. their responses are both in consistent with each other. one says that no one will be effected, not even temporarily. then there is a declaration that there n