which i thought surprisingly given the weather conditions in the sunset but we spent the next 6 months revising plans trying to mitigate shadow and finally told your perfectly within our rights to build a third story and shadows were intended for parks and open space not buildings. so we submitted plans and got a permit it was approved by the fire department the department of building inspection and the planning and so we started construction. partly into the construction our first time complaint of since we

caused their roofs to leak their roofer had gown up to the roof and our vibration from the property caused tare skyline to leak i was struck by the fact how can vibration cause a roof it was 6 years old to leak unless it was poor construction or poor materials or both. but in my event we looked at and they covered over the evidence of roof leaks with wet patch and new edition of gravel a around their pawar pit to the west and north where it was not close to our house at all. subsequentially our contracts roofer and another roofer came

up and advised us their roof ♪ excess of 10 or 15 years old very poor condition. later on they please be advised we ripped open their roof. went up and found, in fact, we had not we simply removed our existing second floor roof and have pawar put that extended approximately 18 inches above their roof our house is further up the hill and their roof is not effected at all yet they said we'd ripped open their roof and caused it to leak. subsequentially at the served us with a lawsuit claiming $200,000 damage to date plus punitive damages of 3 times that amount

monumental to 8 hundred thousand total we figured it in total damages. contacted our insurance company and lawyer and planned the case they said they'd fight the situation. from time to time they presented evidence as they called it but in each case their characterization of what has happened is false their evidence is incorrect or mischaracterized and dbi has inspected the house and found we didn't dangle their house and we were not over their property line as it appeared. everything was in correspondence with the dbi principles and planning code and everything.

so then they were advised to get a survey to they hired a surveyor to prove we built on top of their wall. any exterior wall 30's hospital to be 5 inches in thickness including the framing and exterior covers etc. and even their surveyor came back with an inch and a quarter for the property line does that mean my my time is up and 30 seconds >> 30 seconds they didn't mention envying anything about our east property line we did a survey and merely because a

piece of flashing extended over and, in fact, on their east property line their house. >> you can finish. >> over our property line but a half of an inch. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> you'll have more time. >> mr. duffey. >> commissioners. from reading the brief last night and then speaking to staff at dbi when you read the first page of the brief this is not how we want projects to happen is an under statement. what i did find out today from speaking to the senior inspector better known many there was problems obviously at the start

and of the project whenever they framed i believe nooindz is that the appellants that building could be leon e leaning and when they started the frame at the bottom so when they went up the wall the leaning of the building meant they suddenly had a problem >> the appellants building. >> yes. possibly that's one of the photographs i can see that on top of the trim in san francisco there's a settlement this lean. when you allow for the frame at the bottom as you go up urge to go build it out of the plump or hit the lean of the building. i'm not sure how they started off on the wrong 2009 foot's there was the issue of a lot of

the buildings in san francisco are flashed off each other where you have a picture tatdz wall sometimes, it's not to code but stops a lot of like rain and water problems getting in so that flashing was caught from working at dbi we encourage i know planning don't is the preapplication stuff meeting with people and neighbors talking if you're going to build a building having the discussion with the neighbors is also good something is going to leak if you don't take care of that that's common courtesy dbi didn't want to get involved but certainly the neighbors.

all of those things happened now we're stuck with complaints filed with dbi and inspector went to the site and issued a violation saying per two separate surveys it appears the vertical edition you've built is over the property line and corrective action file a building permit within 60 days and remove my encroachments and adjust the construction so it's within the defined property lines so we have the building permit that's suspended is remove my encroachments over the property line along the right side of the building per plan and move wall to comply with notice of violation that's the notice i read.

so that's the permit that's under appeal. it's in my opinion the permit to fix something now that effects is going to be difficult unless those people get together to figure out i don't how to do the work we have the means and methods basically you've got the construction and you either prop that up or demolish it but the permit is to fix it two people need to get forgetting together there's a permit to build an edition that's been properly approved and issued in my opinion but the issue is those people the two sides getting together and obviously there's something golden with the utilization and stuff like this so i'm available for questions.

if i'm wrong sorry on the lean of the building either party is welcome to question that by that's my that happens sometimes with the bottom and top when you get up to the top of the building there maybe the one or two inches out >> what's our suggestion there's a utilize pending should we follow the lawsuit. >> when i read the brief there's a request from the appellant they wanted the permit suspended but until they figure out possibly in court or together go maybe a mediation certainly continued or allowing it to go. the project i don't think they're moving anywhere with the project because they've got to move the walls their held up anyway >> for some reason i was in the

impression our findings there are individuals that can assist the permit is for purposes of removing a problem is that something our department does. >> we do and the starting of the construction we'll be interested but again, i that we're certainly wanting to be at the table of the meeting but the neighbors as well. >> i'm wondering is that something potentially. >> absolutely we're here and the senior building inspector b will be there you don't want to be moving our wall after you construct it and i've going to be doing she or he and cutting back and moving walls and all

the connections it's just, you know, not something he want. >> when the senior inspector bernie went to the property were there other violations to the property. >> not that i'm aware of i heard some comments about a stairwell nails to the appellants property that is something that dbi wants to know about and we'll take the appropriate action then another notice of violation you can't attach something to someone else's property and so - there was something in the brief something attached to the building he didn't seem to think it was an issue but certainly, if there's a stairwell connected to the wall we want to see that

that's an issue we cannot do that. >> okay. thank you okay mr. sanchez any public comment on that item? please step forward. >> hello, i'm joyce the owner of the property on the south side 2183 so we bought our property in june of 2011 and the plans were approved we purchased and went ahead in good faith we figured we got a plan approved from dbi it's good we're not in litigation or part of the appellants case. i want to sort you show you get an idea of what is being built the third floor i want to say,

you know, maybe some suspension or a continuance to review because there are actually complaints through dbi that have not been addressed i actually went down to dbi to get assistance because of the potential damage not knowing what could happen. i'll show you the actual third story that's on our property. so you can see so on the left is our skylight so the gentleman contact me early on ask me to move my skylight because it was preparing him to build it's facility to the left i did because it's an air space you see that skylight if it hangs offer it's going to prevent him

from building his wall. so i paid my contractor >> can you lift up the picture so see the bottom of it. >> actually, you know, maybe encroachment issues but invite not my main concern there's things the rear of the building so there may be some improvements we didn't address that when i went down to dbi cohesive inspector r&r done helped me to write the complaint so he headline held me he identified that stucco was the material not approved that's all stucco i was asked to liberalism come in and fill in the space

it's hard to indicate there's a space is between the skylight and my property where it's against the other wall so they came in and kind of the workers i think did something they were not supposed to do so i have this patch of steno attached to my building concerning a crack. so in closing, i want to say these complaint that are still ton record with dbi to be addressed. i think two of them said no action one said abated no communication from dbi i don't have any information from the non litigation >> i have a question why did

mr. r&r done say stucco is not appropriate material. >> payroll it requires maintenance so they will have to be on any property to do maintenance going on maintenance that's kind of a code violation no repair or maintenance in the future they couldn't put the stucco on any roof i didn't approve that because if anything happens to the workers on any roof didn't know what kind of liability insurance. >> okay. thank you. >> is there any public comment seeing none, we'll have rebuttal ma'am, you have 3 minutes. >> hello, i'm ma many i'm the co- owner the property and one

of the apartments. first, i'd like to tell you we didn't obtain to their third story but they provided a shade study no discretionary review we didn't circulate it we've often talked about improvements but we are were not opted to it one thing they didn't tell you is that their contractor cut open our entire roof and left us open and imposed to the elements our entire house flooded we have a 5 room how is it of the not a small amount or problem their contractor is uninsured that's the same contractor tare attempting to use now. the other thing they didn't tell you they interpreted to do it without my living to us.

you can clearly see in those pictures here that where is it our roof was cut open the white chaublg they've applied it from this picture you see where is it? can you please do map for me. keep going thank you. you can clearly see our flashing is missing along that side of the house this is what it should look like this is the other side of our home they completely cut off the flashing and left it open the entire roof was left open for a month there were last year gaps and holes that were left open. and water came in and flooded our entire property. this picture is also interesting if you look at this open the

bottom left it's the corner of our house you can clearly see there are several inches between our properties during construction this is the is it correct story there are several inches between our home and now no longer any gap. i'd like to ask the board to if i could have additional time we've done the destruction testing and dbi is notified of the problems we've included the horizon survey and the problems began earlier on the west wall they were there the wall came down we have no objection to the home being built but only obtain

to what we have now a structure that was not built to the plan >> thank you your time is up. >> sir, you have 3 minutes of rebuttal time. >> my understanding is this hearing is the plaintiff vs. dbi so i'm not here to submit all kinds of rebuttals so suffice it to say if everything is true dbi must have been completely remiss in all their inspections of framing and last prior to stucco throughout this entire process.

as far as stucco on the property walls the complaints are saying stucco is compliant for the walls and dbi approved of those plans. as far as choose skylight. this is a payroll non-conforming skylight installed without a permit we didn't call dbi on them just asked them for their roofer to move it was installed with 5 inches over the property line over our south wall. and they built to cover up the exposed stairwell that was exposed since the building was built in the 40's. they had to put in the skylight

over the property line and built a wall on top of our south pawar pit in order to seal that 5 foot approximately opening. we ask that they move their skylight back over the to their side of the property line and remove their wall their roofer comprised he should have done it at no charge to them he was not in compliance with building code they applied for a permit for their roof but the dbi showed it extraordinary without my inspectors because if the roofer called dbi to inspector he'll notice the skylight in violation over the property line also the skielth is of a type of that

doesn't meat cutter standards etc. as far as the stuccoing inside their skylight it was necessitated to put stucco on our wall on our side of the property line in order to seal up the opening that existed before >> thank you your time is up. >> etc. >> thank you. mr. duffey anything further >> just a couple of things there. i checked the open complaints today on the properties there's only one i think what happened was the last notice of violation cleared the way for the other ones to go away that was the one we wanted them to fix the

problem and they obviously have not fixed the plan the plans show stucco finish i'm surprised because to apply the stucco you need to go on the neighbors property sometimes those things get approved sometimes again communication with a neighbor's but normally those types of walls are constructed as you go but the stucco is on the approved plans there was stucco on those walls. the neighbor the lady who spoke on the public comment and did make remarks that dbi were not responsive and the chief inspector is one of the most responsive people and highly qualified people i've over worked with so i'll encourage the neighbor to contact dbi

particularly inspector r&r done to address those problems. i'm not sure i wasn't again representing the department i read the brief there are issues but certainly we'll recognize that but help them resolve it if we can >> well, mr. duffey i'm glad you're making the big bucks we're going to let you take care of that. >> commissioners the matter is submitted. >> mr. sanchez have something. oh, >> scott sanchez i think in response to what the permit holder said i wanted to say on record the planning department wouldn't approve of a permit

that goes into an adjacent property but the clear to the property owner i think you should be clear on those facts. thank you >> thank you. >> well commissioners there's very little we can do. my recommendation is let them fight it out in court and the building inspection will have their hands falling full if i went through the complaints that would be months. i'm prepared to i have no basis for disapproving the building

departments permits they've authorized it to be appropriate don't frown at me like that or do you disagree with what i said. they'll have to fight it out it's going to go years i would move to deny the appeal and uphold the permit that it was appropriately issued at this point by the building department >> yeah. mr. duffey i actually had a slithering different solution but. >> i'm not sorry i can request a continuance (laughter) but i think that you know when you see a permit like this we've

got to make sure that permit - and i was going to proposed that we put it on the to the call of the chair calendar and see what happens with the litigation i think we we uphold the permit it leaves it open for further work which i don't want the appellants to have to do. >> i think there was the option to either deny e.r. suspend the permits it's almost like a cry to get this figured out there's damages and how to fix it and they're not there yet. >> okay. i withdraw any motion. >> i would move we put it on the to the call of the chair calendar to allow the litigation

to be resolved. >> yes. mr. pacheco. >> we have a motion then from the vice president to continue this to the call of the chair this is the boards indefinitely calendar the public hearing has been held to allow the litigation between the parties to proceed on that motion and commissioner fung. commissioner hwang. president is absent commissioner honda >> thank you the vote it 4 to a 5 this matter s is to the minute break. >> welcome