series of e-mail exchanges. i never denied the project's sponsors access to complete the sighting. in march of this year they told me to work with their lawyer, which i did. he and i have exchanged written correspondence and had a half hour conversation in april and july. on three separate occasions of may and june this year, agreed the contractors could come to my home. i continue to be willing to provide access to my property as long as my neighbors provide me proof of insurance and a satisfactory timeline for the work. letters have been sent in by neighbors in support of producing this permit. there are at least a dozen. you should have copies of those. people are here from the neighborhood to support me to revoke this. i ask that the board revoked the

permit because it is an error, a unilateral decision made by staff planners. i paid for a notification. the city cashed my check. it is active and on file. the permit holder never discharged the time line information, went around the permiting system, and misrepresented my position. as you can see in writing, i will allow the permit holder access to my property as long as i receive proof of insurance and a satisfactory timeline of the work. this is information anyone in my position would ask for. it is normal practice for construction projects in san francisco and access is necessary, especially when 20 foot scaffolding is involved. i asked you revoke the permit for pressure treated plywood and ask that this work be completed in a timely fashion.

commissioner fung: can you turn than the other way? >> this is the view from the neighbor's property. this is from kester street. this is a view from my bedroom. this is a view from sitting at my dining room table. that is a view from my den. lastly i will show you the 3-11 notification. this shows that it would be siding, the wall in question. walls would all be siding. thank you. commissioner fung: did you respond to the last offer from the attorney regarding the

sharing of costs? >> i did not because i do not feel it is my responsibility to complete my neighbors work. i was not responsible for delaying the project. i never denied them access. they received money back from the scaffolding company. i am not the one that denied them access. commissioner fung: thank you. >> we can hear from the permit holders now or their agent. >> madam president, commissioners, my name is conrad donner. i am here on behalf of lisa kinimaka and kanthryn hathryn h.

that is whether the building inspector, when he made his report in october was misled into believing that there were access issues. his notice and report is attached to the response as exhibit b/ the contractor had finished the exterior. that was his part of the job. but he was unable to direct the scaffolding so he could affix the siding to the rear of west wall of this residence. in this report, the building inspector advised that there was a modification permit that was needed both with respect to the scope of the work and the materials. without that, they could not

secure a final certificate. i think the starting point for this is to acknowledge that both the building inspector and ms. belsky understood that scaffolding and access to erect scaffolding were essential to this job. her e-mails to you, which she submitted, indicate that she understands this. obviously, man cannot sit on a plank hanging down from the roof with pressurized tools. that is too dangerous. the most important letter you have before you.

in that letter there is a clearcut statement, non- ambiguous. she instructed our crew not to enter her property. the crew from that point on did not. the building inspector was at the job site throughout the course of the construction. he speaks to the contractor and he speaks to the men. i want you to consider two other factors together with the contractor pick statement, because i think that are important. first, during a period of 10 years before this dispute ever arose, ms. belsky not once but twice refused access to allow the premises to be painted. it should not come as too much of a surprise here.

in our communications to the board, she complained that this on painted surface constitutes an eyesore. that should not be a surprise either. at a meeting that i requested and which chirac used to attend -- which are requested and which she refused to attend if either lisa or kathryn were present, she admitted she denied access, but said that was just for a few days. at this meeting, i asked her if she would try to be objective. please explain to me why it when the contractor provided for the application of siding on all four walls -- the men were there.

the equipment was there. the scaffolding was there. why wouldn't he have performed what he is obligated to do under the contract? there was no explanation that she could provide, and yet if you read those letters that are solicited from the neighbors to send in, it certainly appears from those letters that other explanations were made, such as lisa and katryn were looking for a way out, which is nonsense. the building inspector was not misled. they sought a modification permit. both dbi and planning signed off. the fact is ms. belsky has changed her mind. this situation now is different. it is a lot more expensive.

you have to start from scratch with a new contractor. how much more expensive? the contractor is going to anticipate or for see how much difficulty he is going to have. that is why three of six contractors who we saw said thank you but no thank you, we would prefer not to even submit a bid. the others were up to $8,500 more than the original cost. ms. belsky would be pleased if you were to overrule the building inspector and revoked the modification permit so all of these costs would fall on her, but that is not an equitable or fair result. i submit that you should deny

the appeal. make those parties sit down and talk. force an agreement. they both want the same result. that is how the result can come about -- if forced agreement between the parties that will not only the best for them, but also best for the neighbors. some did and some did not write letters. for those reasons, a request that you deny the appeal. i thank you. commissioner fung: a technical question for you. the exposed plywood that is currently on the wall now -- is that the structural plywood or has it been applied over structural plywood? >> i do not have that answer. commissioner fung: the related

question was how was the plywood installed. >> might contrasting experiences very limited. >> i am not a contractor either. in conversations with the building inspector, we were concerned about getting the sighting applied. we wanted to get the work done. commissioner fung: my question was very specific. >> what he indicated was that the wall was secure. it was weatherproof. the plywood on top of its is adequate from a building and structural perspective. commissioner fung: let me rephrase the question. some walls are built flat on the ground and lifted flat into place. was that what was done here? >> that is correct.

commissioner fung: so your existing wall has one layer of plywood over your wood studs. is that correct? >> i cannot answer. i would have to look at photos. that is the process by which it was directed. commissioner garcia: you referenced exhibit b. i think that is signed by mr. donnelly. i assume he talked to pani agua. do we know whether or not he spoke with ms. belsky? >> i think we would have to ask her. i commissioner garcia: you are not sure? >> i do not have knowledge of that specific conversation. commissioner garcia: it would help us determine who shot it

down. do we know whether the alleged refusal to access was predicated upon the preconditions requested by ms. belsky? do we know whether she was being capricious and whimsical, or was she doing it because no one had yet responded to the issues having to do with liability insurance? when are the timelines for the scaffolding? will i still be able to access my backyard? these types of issues. do we know that? >> over a considerable period of time there was an exchange of these e-mails, some of which you have before you. there were a number of different requirements and demands that were made, including her satisfaction as to some claimed damage on the top of the wall. commissioner garcia: that comes

later. what i am asking -- when the initial access is denied, is it denied because ms. belsky decides she does not want them to have access, or because she has not yet been satisfied that the request having to do with insurance has been satisfied? do we know that? >> i do not know that specifically, but if you read those e-mails, the denial occurs early. the dispute is ongoing with regards to that. commissioner garcia: maybe you have to point that out to me. when i find e-mails, i find, "this is when i will be out of town. you may not come at that time."

i find those kinds of things, but i do not see a clear pattern of "you may not have access to my property." can you point that to me? >> that is certainly in exhibit c. commissioner garcia: you had said e-mails. this is he said she said. this is mr. paniagua you had communications going on in e-mail which is totally different than what was through

the contractor. "we only have what he states the conversation was. is there something that you can substantiate through the e-mail and the various occasions between the parties outhouse -- between the parties? >> there is not a video or a tape or a corroborating witness. >> within those e-mails, it would be evidence that she was denied access. the contractor is probably credible but we don't know that. >> what i was referring to with the e-mails was the acknowledgement that it was absolutely essential to have

access in order to put the siding on the rear west wall. >> i might come at this from a different direction. thank you. >> the matter before this court is a very complicated and private matter but what is clear is that everyone wants the same results and that is to have deciding on this wall. the department would require sighting on this wall. the department had to approve this permit because the permit holder can not have access granted in order to install that

sighting. there are some conflicting testimony is. there were certain conditions for access. whether or not those are appropriate, that is what the department is charged with reviewing. we want the board of appeals to exercise their wisdom and listen to both sides about what is appropriate. we think that the siding should be located on that wall but if the neighbors not allowing access to install the siding, we don't know how it can be installed. if the board can help us all resolve this, this appeal was filed in march as this year.

we were hoping to have some resolution. that has not happened. we would like to find out how we can best deal with this and get sighting on this building. >> this does not go to whether or not the board has this wisdom. the appellate cites the fact that she has a -- >> there's currently a block with notation. my understanding was that this is not in place by the time it was reviewed by the department. >> one additional item, i would have looked at the color of the

ink on the particular wall where this is adjacent to the property. >> one of the things that the guideline would speak to is a similar material to the existing building. there is discussion about what would be appropriate, and the appellant would like the siding that matches their building. this would not match necessarily the permit holders building. that is a deviation from what we would require. as a matter of -- this is a personal matter between the two parties.

>> just a few technical comments. in my experience with the billing department i have seen that the planning department does require some citing rather just plywood on the property line walls. the district inspectors said that we need to address this and make it conform to the plan. putting up this idea isn't the end of the process.

once they did this, we do have to paint it. this will the one continually. the plywood is an exposed material that does not necessarily need paint. the photos show unpainted materials. the building code states that you need materials on property line walls that have a natural resistance to decay or otherwise. you can have a building on a site that is removed at any still need your building to have a proper wall. this will be a long list. these people often think that the building code allows this to go on your neighbor's property or install sighting or paint. there's no such thing in any city or code that i have ever

heard of that allows you to -- on your neighbor's property. the discussion with these plans could be installed as the plywood was while the wall was delayed. there are methods for doing that. this could be installed on the adjoining property. this could be installed from the roof which is actually quite commonly done. this is difficult but it is is still encroaching on the neighbor's property. it is quite commonly done.

>> the question was raised earlier having to do with the statement from mr. donnelly. do we know anything beyond what is in the package as to whether or not mr. donnelly and she had denied access? >> no, i don't know. >> this must have arisen before to parties. many have not wanted to provide solutions. >> 99% of the time, their neighbors. they do this and they clean it up and it is result. a couple of times a year it goes to court. you probably know how the court decides.

this is necessary. i know it goes to court a couple of times a year through our office. >> this is a workable solution so they don't have to go to court. >> we try. >> thank you. >> can we move to public comment? please raise your hand if you are interested in speaking in public comment.

each speaker will have 80 minutes. >> i am requesting that you consider revoking the permanent. in all fairness, requiring the homeowners to complete the work properly at no cost. i believe that the permit was improperly sought and granted. i think that the claim that the scaffolding is essential is not really true. this never had to go on the neighbor's property for any reason but i don't think the contractor was paying attention. i believe that people during construction projects need to be exceptionally careful unpleasant

to their neighbors because you are creating a huge imposition. these homeowners seem to be getting into fights with everyone. just because they claim that they refuse permission to complete the work, there is no reason to allow this to stand. i find that it is ridiculous to spend as much money on an attorney. he obviously does not come cheap. i think that she has been pretty reasonable in their requirements to have insurance, to refuse to

work. there is some evidence that they have the insurance and he vacations should be in writing. >> is your property as close to your neighbors? >> this is exactly the same. it is difficult to construct and down -- difficult to construct. >> thank you for letting us have the opportunity to discuss why we cannot like this.

this is clearly visible by several of the neighbors. reiterating what has been said before, when i read the paper trail and when i've spoken, it is clear that she has never denied access. she was simply asking for proof of insurance and some fan of timeline as to how and when the projects would be finished. if i understand the material correctly, they decided to change the project and not put up citing purely based on --