everything to code, and the people next door to them, it's just been here i believe. horrible. the woman plays the piano. it's her job. she's a pianist. they hear her all day long. it's enough to make them want to sell their house. i mean, the fact that we probably even share a wall means that we're going to hear everything that comes through. so whatever the code is, i would like to -- whatever they do to be stronger than what they have to do, if that's possible. that's my only -- >> ma'am, i have a question for you. have you had neighbors in that property prior? >> yes, we have. >> how was the sound at that time? >> well, for a very long time, there was an older couple, and we never had any problems with

them. then it was just the two people. then a family moved in, and we really didn't have problems with them either except that he plays the -- he also played the piano. he had the piano in their front parlor, which abutted our dining room, and it is almost like the person is in the same room. >> okay. thank you. >> he played very well. >> free concert. >> i could see where it could be a huge problem. >> okay. thank you. >> yeah. >> okay. we can take rebuttal from the permit holder. >> good evening, commissioners. i am the new architect for the permit holders. i just wanted to address the

condition of the property walls. all the property walls are going to be insulated with r19 or r13 insulation, and they will have new sheetrock on the two layers of -- 5/8 sheetrock on the inside of the wall. right now, the condition that they have is no insulation on that wall and plaster. so insulation better. sheetrock is belter. two layers of sheetrock is a lot better than plaster. so -- and also, regarding the question of commissioner swig, about why we didn't go back for a site revision to the site permit before getting it issued, it's a question of timing. if we had to go back to get plan checked for a revision from planning, from building, it would probably be three, four

months, maybe six months. we thought that the best approach was to get the site permit issued as it and reduce the scope of work in the subsequent addendum, which is required. so we got the site permit issued. we communicated that to the neighbors. we knew their concerns and we were amendable to come to a private agreement making sure that -- to put it in writing that we are removing the basement and they were not amendable to that. they wanted to come to the board of appeals to get this memorialized as conditions. >> michael hom, i want to clarify under pinning and shoring. we will not be doing under pinning. we will be doing shoring. so like joe duffy mentioned that we're doing alternating

sections, having each section shored up with a planter box method approach. that is what we will be doing. drawings for shoring have been developed. it was shared with both the engineer as well as architect and a feedback from both the architect and engineer for the neighbors were good. it's fine. but the difference is actually going underneath the neighbor's building and providing a new foundation support below the neighbor's building. shoring would be doing it in sections with the planter box method alternating probably a, b, c. so that is what we are doing, shoring. thank you. that's to clarify. >> just to clarify -- >> are you finished with your presentation? >> yeah. >> okay. good. >> i forgot my question. i'm just kidding. so at any point, is your

foundation lower than theirs where you're doing it? how is the topography of it. >> so existing -- both of our foundations along john and carol's building, we're at about 7 feet to 7.5 feet ceiling height. we will be trying to achieve -- what we're trying to achieve is 9 feet ceiling height. we will be going below their foundation. that's the reason for the alternating planter box method that's going to be done by the shoring engineer. that needs to be permitted, reviewed by the building department prior to start-up any work. >> okay. thank you. >> do you have a proposal from somebody who is known to do shoring and underpinning work? is that same proposal applying to just shoring now? , that same engineer? >> yes. we had a proposal from that engineer. he developed drawings for the shoring design, and we shared it with both neighbors.

>> thank you. >> one last point. if i could, i have one more thing to say about the insulation. that's going to be -- it is mr. duffy said that it's required by the mechanical code. so it's going to be reviewed as part of the addendum set. it's going to be plan checked. then it's also going to be -- there's -- in building inspection, there's a special inspection. they're going to inspect it's in place and there's also a form that the contractor has to do certifying that has been done according to plans. there are all the safeguards for insulation in the new walls. >> that's only for title 24. that's the thermal insulation. it's not acoustic insulation. >> correct, sir, but that insulation, whether it is for thermal insulation for title 24, it is also the same material that is requested for sound insulation and that is used by

acoustical engineers in their design. >> thank you. >> did you have a question? >> what's that? >> yes. if you're expecting -- if you're requesting this board to condition your permit, we'll need drawings also. do you have drawings eliminating the basement? we're not going to reference just -- >> we're preparing addendum set to be submitted -- we're going to submit now. there's an appeal in progress. the addendum set will be submitted once the appeal is listed. >> how long would it take to you get drawings? what the president is asking is that we can't make a decision without those drawings because we need something to reference. >> we're talking about your site permit drawings, not your addendum drawings.

>> excuse me, sir. >> your site permit is what you have in front of us. >> the site, yes. site permit is already issued. >> well, yeah. okay. we'll have to submit the addendum. >> you guys don't understand my question. >> so i think what the president is trying to say -- hopefully i understand it -- is that if we -- you guys are willing to remove the basement. correct? the problem is we need to reference something that removes the basement and not just oral testimony. we would need a drawing that reflects that. how long will it take to you get that drawing? >> the drawings will take two to three weeks to -- >> it's going to take two to three weeks to get a drawing for us to reference? >> correct. >> okay. thank you. >> the whole drawing or -- >> do you need the entire set? >> the site permit set. all you have to do is eliminate that floor from the one drawing. >> well, the site permit was

already issued. >> actually, just to be clear, the site permit is not issued. it's on appeal before the board. just so you understand, that's the subject of this appeal. so it's not issued yet. >> what we would like to avoid would be to submit the site permit as a revision and have to go through a whole process of that. >> that's why you want us to condition it. >> we're trying to help you here. >> all right. >> i don't think you understand. we'll make our thing and then you'll hear what we're asking. >> we can't do anything but a conditional at this point. you need to talk to inspector duffy what you have to do to get this appropriately done. okay? >> okay. >> we have rebuttal from the department, and i think at least one of them is eager to speak. mr. teague. >> good evening again, commissioners. i don't have anything to add from the department

specifically, but just to clarify, if i understand what you're saying, is that what you would need from the permit holder in order to take action and approve a special conditions permit is basically a revised version of the site permit that would be submitted to the board, not submitted to the department, for you to take direct action on. >> because that set goes to the building department. >> that would be the architectural drawings. it would not require the structural. okay. >> yeah. it's just a site permit set. >> thank you. >> may i ask -- >> one second. let's finish and if there's questions, the commissioners will ask. >> commissioners, just on the shoring, that's fine if they're going to do a shoring. they still need to consult with these neighbors on this because i think that the neighbors mighy they want to speak probably about this. but the shoring does work, but

it's got to be done by a geo tech. it's got to be designed. if you're not going to underpin someone, then shoring does work. i've seen it work. but they would need to have an agreement in place like with the neighbors. i did hear them saying that they were getting drawings ready. really, again, just on the drawing thing, that would have been good to have here tonight as well. knowing that they're going to use this, even though they can't submit it yet to dbi. having that shoring drawing would be helpful for the neighbors as well. maybe that has happened, but i wasn't clear on that, if they had consulted with the neighbors' engineer. >> i think they provided the sharing design to the neighbor. >> i didn't hear that. the two layers of sheetrock on the inside is not required. there's only one layer required. i don't know what that's going to do. it's going to add weight to the

building. you do not need two layers of sheetrock on the inside -- that's only on one side. >> two layers on one side. >> they're not required to put the two layers on the one side on an existing wall. it used to be in the code, but they took it out like 20 years ago. unless it's a new wall, then it's sheetrock on both sides. >> that was only in the books for a couple years, wasn't it. >> we realized it was adding a lot of weight and it wasn't really providing that much more fire protection, but they do need to come up with the design for themselves in the agreement, which could add sheetrock to that wall if that's part of the acoustic design. >> they also are going to need a revision permit to document -- well, the condition permit probably would take care of it to eliminate the basement. that probably will do it. the board of appeals condition

permit which they're not understanding. so are you finished? >> yeah. go ahead. >> so what i'm hearing from you, for us to really move this forward with any certainty, assurity, and security for the neighbors, we really need president fung's suggestion, we need to see a set of plans that is revised that takes the basement away or the parking thing away. two, we need a real set of plans by a bona fide geotechnical person who is licensed or recognized for that level of foundation work to be submitted with the aforementioned. finally, just for everybody's comfort and sleep at night, we

also need a plan that would show the sound attenuation intention so that we can bundle them all together and move forward. >> you're right, and most part of that i would keep the shoring plan separate, on a separate permit, and would do the condition permit that could cover the elimination of the basement and the soundproofing. the shoring design would be under separate permit. >> it would have to be any way. >> we could review it and look at it and what we would like to hear is the neighbors engineer in writing, say something in writing -- verbal is fine, but we would like to have something saying they're okay with it. >> could we condition it at the appropriate time after we see the revised garage plan and the sound attenuation plan?

could we say that recognize those plans and also recognize the intention of the project sponsor to provide a shoring plan under a separate permit? >> right, which is available, of course, as well. i mean, if there's any problem with it, that's available. hopefully at that point, they're okay with that. when you do the shoring as well, i can see they're doing the monitoring because that will help as well to make sure that the shoring is -- it shouldn't be a problem, but -- >> i think they've already done the monitoring. that's set. if you want to bundle this together, what they should be doing is they need to provide a revised site permit set that this board can adopt, which shows the removal of the basement. it would be nice in terms of the neighbors concerns to show two

additional details. i think planning should require it any way or a site permit. they require you to have lighting plans for site permit. otherwise, you have to do some other cockamamie stuff. if they would just provide a simple detail that shows the outdoor lights in the rear yard point downward, then they're fine. third, if they provide a detail in this revised set that shows the wall construction down below or at the party wall, then that allows the neighbors to review. the shoring permit, they're going to need to have the neighbors concurrence any way. >> yep. >> so you bundle all four together, get the agreement. then we can adopt it and they'll save the time that's necessary

from a resubmittal of the entire site permit package. >> so that being said, would you like to make a motion to continue this requesting the bundle that you suggested? >> yeah. those four items, i think -- how much time do you need? >> can i ask a question first? i'm a little confused on the sound attenuation. how do we impose some sort of a standard on that? >> they have a proposed detail. the neighbors have seen that detail. they have -- the neighbors have an architect who has reviewed it for them and can concur with that detail. therefore, that sets the standard. >> so if they can't reach an agreement on that, then what. >> they like what they saw from their architect who has been in

discussions with the permit holder. >> or we can apply the condominium standard that president fung suggested earlier. >> okay. why don't we do that, say that as the minimum would be the state code standard for party walls between condominiums. >> sure. yes? >> i'm sorry. i have a question on that. if we're dealing with existing property line walls, for example, that detail would provide something on both sides? >> the state standard is not a detail. it's a sound transmission coefficient that they have established. >> i didn't want something to be drawn -- okay. >> they will have to conform to the sound transmission coefficient. >> i didn't want them to come up with a detail they couldn't do,

or better. >> so we're basically looking at a one, a shoring or underpinning agreement. two, exterior lights be pointing down. three, settlement monitoring system. and then condition the permit to reflect -- >> then the garage plan. >> to reflect the basement to be removed. >> and the sound attenuation. >> it's the shoring plan. >> the settlement monitoring, they've already installed. if you want to be -- dot your is, you would make that as a condition. >> yeah. >> you'll get a chance to respond because they have to come back. okay. all right. >> you want to make that motion. >> how much time do you need, michael? three weeks? okay. [ speaking off microphone ] >> that's in the -- for the site

permit set. then you need those other couple of very small details. you probably don't need that much time to get those. one dealing with the outdoor light. one dealing with the party wall. i think you're going to need time to get concurrence on your shoring permit set. [ off microphone ] >> you need concurrence. [ off microphone ] >> from the neighbors? [ off microphone ] >> i think shoring requires concurrence from the neighbors. yeah. okay. [ off microphone ] >> shoring also. >> if you're going to speak, please come up to the microphone. thanks. >> yeah. the underpinning requires that you have an agreement with the

neighbor. shoring where it's done completely within our report and that does not require an agreement with the neighbor. >> i'm not sure that's correct, sir. >> section 832 requires notification of the neighbor before you begin excavation. it requires that you give the neighbor access to your property to protect their own. >> i understand that. >> but it does not -- section 832 does not require your sign to sign off or agree to your work. >> okay. thank you. >> okay. >> let's ask the building department. >> it may not be required under section 832, but the california building code 3307, i'll read it out here. adjacent public and private properties shall be protected from damage during construction remodeling and demolition work. protection must be provided for foundations, party walls, roofs.

provisions shall be made to control the water run-off and erosion during construction or demolition activities. the person making or causing an excavation to be made shall provide written notice to the owners of adjacent buildings advising them that the excavation is to be made and the adjoining buildings should be protected. said notifications shall be delivered not less than 10 days prior to the scheduled start of the excavation. then other requirements of protection of adjacent properties to which protection is required are defined in the california civil code section 832. it's in our building code for reference. so, you know, i disagree with the architect, obviously. if they're going to put in shoring -- any excavation beside the property line -- there's no shoring detail tonight. they're talking about shoring. nobody brought a plan. if this shoring plan is available, i would imagine 3307 does come in to play because it has to be right at the property line.

>> as you read it, they have to give notification, but it doesn't require the adjacent property owner to accept or approve. correct? >> yeah. >> okay. >> that's fine. >> from what you read, it sounds like they're required to give notification, but it's not subject to -- >> it's a separate permit, which is appealable. >> exactly. >> i think it's incumbent upon them to wrap these things up and arrive at a mutually unhappy situation. >> there needs to be an agreement. the neighbors should have an engineer on board. the two engineers get together and say this is a good idea or this is going to work. that's the way it happens. >> that's the more efficient way. >> yeah, of course. absolutely. and i like it -- like we encourage it to be in writing. there's nothing to hide. it's a design. it should be in writing. it should be done right. >> let's see what they can do. they need three weeks. march 2 1?

>> yeah. that's 4. >> you have a choice. two weeks or four weeks. march 7th? okay. okay. all right. i'm going to move to continue this to march 7th. you know what you need to do. you'll get a chance to speak them after you've seen the documentation. okay? >> the shoring plan, is it a full site submittal permit, or is it just with details and everything else? >> it's the site permit set modified to show your scope of work and the two details, one dealing with the party wall, one dealing with the light. >> i don't believe it's a party wall actually.

it's two separate walls with a shared foundation. >> the wall at the property line. >> right. >> okay. [ off microphone ] >> all right. come to the speaker, please. >> microphone. >> i guess what i'm trying to say is when they come back, so we don't have this happen again, is there more changes than just deleting the basement. i think that should be clear that whatever they're going to propose, it isn't just removing the basement. that's what i was trying to say before. >> well, you never brought it up in any of your materials, sir f you're going to bring up additional things, that's up to you. but we're only looking at the things that have been addressed to this point in time. >> okay. thank you. [ off microphone. >> ] >> you'll have another opportunity march 7th. >> president fung, i'm taking that as a motion to continue this to march 7th to allow

time for the permit holder to submit a revised permit set reflecting the removal of the basement, a lighting plan that shows exterior lights pointing downward, and wall construction not party wall. i don't know -- >> property line wall. >> property line wall construction details showing at a minimum that the construction meets the state code standard for party walls between condominiums. >> yes. >> and then you also wanted to see a shoring plan. that is not part of this permit, but you want them to submit it. >> they might as well. >> and a shoring plan. those are to be submitted to us the thursday prior to the meeting so you'll get copies in your packets. >> okay. >> and no submittals from the other side. is that right? >> yes. >> okay. >> can you clarify, please, now that you've -- now that you've clarified so eloquently, can you, again, president fung, ask the project sponsor if they will

be ready with their drawings the thursday before our -- i want to make that really clear. >> thursday before march 7th. >> that would be next week. >> march 1st. >> where are we submitting the material to? to the board of appeals. >> the board of appeals and the appellant. >> would it be -- >> our office, 11 copies to our office, just like the brief was submitted. 11 copies to our office plus a copy to each appellant, one copy to each appellant. we will handling getting the materials to dbi and planning. >> you will be sending it to them. all right. thank you. >> you're able to do that by next thursday? a week from tomorrow? i see thumbs up behind you. okay. on that motion, commissioners.

[ roll call ] >> that motions passes. >> last case on the calendar 17-194 teal momota with planning department approval the department is 730 cabrilla street. we model of single family residence including kitchen plumbing e electrical and structural work. no work on front facade. no fire alarm or sprinkler work. rear deck in buildable area. if everyone could leave the room quietly. >> i'm sorry, people. please be courteous to other people that have cases before us this evening. thank you. >> we'll start with the appellant. >> president fung, commissioners, good evening. i'm teal momota. i live at 732cabrillo. my neighbors is the 730 have the

property and they've -- the former neighbor pretty much left that place in disrepair. it's a gut job. so -- is the screen onment? here we go. this is what the dbi sent me before i filed this appeal. you'll notice no fire alarm or sprinklers right here. no fire alarm or sprinkler work. you also notice that it says zero basements or cellarsment when i went down to look at what's on file on mission street, i brought a picture. so this will be a lot clearer. our two houses are exactly alike. that tree is in the way, but you can kind of tell. starting at the bottom -- can we

turn off the talking thing? it's in the way. you can see where my pen is, that is the garage. that's street level. they had that labeled as the basement on the dbi plans, which dbi crossed out and wrote first floor. then above it, second floor is dining room, kitchen. above that are four bedrooms, and then directly above that is dormer, attic space. to even access that, you have to get up on a ladder in my bathroom upstairs, crawl through a thing and then go up through another trap to get into that attic. our houses are identically the same. their floor plan, everything. it's easy for me to see what's going on. so cynthia, i spoke to her a couple times. she told me to speak to mr. duffy, which i was fortunate to speak to last friday. he clarified my questions. so from what i understand, this is a three story home, my home and their home.

garage is first floor. two living spaces above and then the attic. so what they're proposing to do is they sit on the third floor, which is the 4th floor underneath the roof. they're adding two dormers. you see the dormer in the front. they're going to one in the rear and they're going to do one on the east side, which is on that side. they're going to put a full bathroom and an office up there. so no sprinklers and no fire alarm was quite alarming. i did talk to our neighbors, and she did say that they are planning on putting in a sprinkler system. well, currently right now, it's not on the permit. i have an e-mail if you would like to see that. i did speak to them and they said oh, yeah, we were always planning to put a sprinkler system in. i was confused as to why it said no fire alarm or sprinkler.

so i'm requesting that be corrected and i'm sure there's inspections to make sure all this goes forward as planned if that is in fact the case what the board -- the commissioners decide. then my second concern was, as you know and we all share dutch gutters in these homes butted up. the former neighbor had not -- didn't have somebody that was a legal contractor go up and mickey mouse around often his roof which consequently compromised them. i reroofed that side of the house to make sure that no leaks were caused from the repair of a dutch gutter, but then leaking because i had a bad roof. my roof did not need to be replaced. so i have asked 730cabrillo to -- i would like to have an agreement since i've had this happen to me already to pay for

damages that were incurred on my property because somebody that was not a legal contractor ruined or compromised the seal. to have an agreement that if they damage my roof or my property, that they have to pay for it because i'm not going to pay for my roof again. i did give them a legal contract and they did tell me that oh, in a couple weeks, we'll have an agreement together. so i'm sure they're forming something. i gave them the choice of using my roofing contractor because it's less likely if he redoes their roof that he's going to damage the dutch gutter on my side of the roof since he did it just two years ago. they have copies of my canceled checks, that kind of thing. okay. and then something that i just learned from the previous people is we have a property wall, a shared -- the party wall or whatever you want to call that thing. and the previous people that lived there were very old, old lady and her son, and we never

heard boo, but you can hear when her son put on the television, you can hear it right through the wall on the bedroom level and my daughter sleeps there. i never understood why she could never sleep until one day i went in and he had it on. you can hear the chinese new year parade on that thing through the wall. i don't know what the code is. we're not a condominium. it's a family home. what are the codes for soundproofing because that is something i want done. they actually, after they bought the home, the entire family and everybody went over there. they were laughing and talking. it was like i had a party in my home. that's how laud it was. i didn't realize how bad these walls were until all these people came over and you can hear everybody next -- i could hear the conversation like i'm talking to you now. so that would be something that i would be interested in having the walls, since they're gutting this whole thing, i have all their plans here because it was

sent when they sent the rebuttal. so that would be the third item on my agenda. so is that pretty straightforward? i don't want to waste anybody's time. >> are you finished? >> i am. >> i have a question. how long have you lived at the property? >> i think since 2001. >> and have you guys done any significant improvements to your side as far as removing -- those home came with plaster. >> we've done nothing to the walls. i did cosmetic changes to the inside of the kitchen, put marble in and new appliances. we reroofed the lower roof when we first moved in there. then the east side, that's butted up to them is brand new. the other side, i just had a roofer come out and he said nothing else needs to be changed except maybe the front gutter on our house. >> okay. thank you. thank you. >> okay. >> okay.

we can hear from the permit holder. >> good evening president fung, commissioners. i'm steven hammond on behalf of ryan and carey baker. this is a single family home in the sunset which the bakers intend to rehabilitate and occupy as their permanent resident dense. >> richmond district you meant to say. >> i'm sorry. did i not say richmond district. >> you said sunset. >> put the microphone up a little bit. thank you. >> this is a single family home which the bakers intend to update as their permanent residence and raise their children. the appeal before us is really

only about the dutch gutter. i want to read for you just quickly the preliminary statement of appeal submitted, which states that the first sentence, 730 and 732cabrillo must reach a legal agreement regarding 732 roof which shares dutch gutter between the properties. no mention of these other issues as presented in the preliminary statement of appeal. no appeal brief was filed. frankly, we haven't had an opportunity to address those issues because they weren't timely raised. but with respect to the dutch gutter, what the appellant would like to see, as she states, is she would like the contractor to review their changes in the roof to see if any work is needed to keep her property watertight and for 730 to be responsible for any expenses that her contractor

says is needed. i met with the contractor, our contractor the other day. he doesn't think there's going to be any work necessary whatsoever to the dutch gutter. almost certainly, no work necessary with respect to the portion of the dutch gutter on the appellant's property. so it's beyond dispute and as we set fort in our appeal brief, our opposition brief, that we can't trespass on her property. we can't do any work on her property without her permission. and if any work is necessary, we need to enter into an agreement. i expect that we would. that's what good neighbors do. but at this time, we don't think there is any work necessary. and the reality is that this dutch gutter was apparently constructed and attached to 730

without permission. excuse me. 732 cabrillo. now, there's an expectation that we're going to warranty the neighbor's roof. that's the next points in this preliminary statement of appeal. it says if the dutch gutter is not touched, 732 would like a five-year guarantee there is no leaking from construction altering the roof at 730 and 730 won't be responsible for expense of any repairs. i'm not sure what to do with that. you know, she wants a warranty for her roof when we don't think that there's going to be any work necessary to the dutch gutter and certainly not on her side of the dutch gutter. so what she's asking for is

guarantees that we won't trespass, but of course that's already something we can't do without permission. and she wants a warranty for her roof which we believe is more than she's entitled to. the -- we have reached out to ms. momota, and we're willing to continue to do so. but it shouldn't be under the -- in the context of holding up a permit when what is really at issue is completely unrelated to the work anticipated. with respect to the other issues raised, they're untimely. there was no mention of it in any of the submissions. there's no appeal brief filed,

but i do believe the issue was thoroughly anticipated and investigated during the permit process. namely, that the basement or call it whatever you want, is a garage. it's not habitable. there's no habitable space in that garage. so when we talk about adding a story, there's no obligation to install a sprinkler system. and even if there were three stories above a not habitable basement, to convert that to a habitable basement, there could still be no requirement to install a sprinkler system. and, you know, we haven't had an

opportunity to thoroughly address the issue, but i'm getting this information from the criteria established by the department of building inspection and their info sheet sf03. finally, with respect to a party wall, there is no party wall. these two properties do not share a party wall. there is a dutch getter which attaches the two roofs. they do not share a wall. in closing, you know, the demolition permit issued in 2017 for the interior of this property is gutted. it's not habitable. the bakers would like to get on with their work so that they can move in and raise their family. and any further delay would be prejudicial to them especially in light of the lack of

substance with respect to the appeal. i respectfully request you deny the appall and i'm available to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. we can hear from the -- the department speaks next. >> good evening. corey teague. the building permit before you for 730 cabrillo was filed in june of 2017. it was reviewed and approved on august 10th, 2017. the work included interior renovations and a rear deck less than 10 feet in height. it met the code fully and did not require neighborhood notice or any other additional review that would prevent it from being approved over-the-counter. dbi subsequently issued the permit on november 30th of 2017. the only issue raised in the appeal, the only appeal

documentation with regard to the dutch gutter, which is not a matter on the per view of the planning department as was mentioned, there was no brief, so i don't have any additional information to provide on the appeal, but i'm available for any questions you may have. >> thank you. >> mr. duffy. >> mr. murphy? >> inspector murphy. >> i've been called worse. i've been called murphy before as well. that's okay. no problem. the permit that's under appeal remodel of the finkle family residence including kitchen plumbing electrical mechanical and structural work. no work on front facade, no fire alarm or sprinkler work. rear yard, deck less than 10 feet height in the buildable area. the permit was issued on -- june 2017. issued on the 30th of november

2017. the the appellant came to see me and it brought up a point that made me think about the accuracy of the application. it's called an existing four story building. i may have an issue with that. i can't find any records anywhere that it was an existing four story building. the reason i'm bringing that up is because if that top level, the attic, which is the closed nest, i suppose you could call it, if that's converted to habitable space, we're going from three levels to four levels. the sprinkler requirement would kick in. the permits reflect it as existing four and not changing. again, i looked up property profile. the city assessor's record has it 1910 square feet. i don't know where you get four

levels under that, the size of the property. so i do have a concern about that. i maybe need more time or something that we can deal with that dbi. but certainly when these permits are submitted, we do like them to be -- to accurately give us the existing legal number of levels and then the proposed. in this case, it would be going from three to you are four. i'm not entirely sure. there was a permit issued earlier for some demolition of interior finishes. as i said, the owners would be on the property owner to provide us with documentation that that building has four stories of occupancy. other than that, i don't see anything else. the dutch gutter issue, i don't know if there's any alterations so that, if this is going to be dormers or whatever put on. that is usually -- we do expect the contractor to come up with an agreement with the neighbor.

we have spoken about that here before. it's not regulated by the building code, but it is a good idea to provide the details so that the water doesn't cause problems and we know these gutters are pretty common in san francisco. so it's a good idea. i recommend that they come to some agreement on that, if the permit is upheld and the work proceeds. if there's any flashing between buildings. other than that -- >> the dormer is held away from the -- several feet from the dutch gutter. >> when you get up there, it sometimes causes -- >> walking on it. >> yeah. it's a good neighborhood policy to -- especially from a contractor if he's going in there to work to have the roofer come up with a detail. >> are you done? >> uh-huh. >> so the -- i understand the dormers are over-the-counter. right? it's a great way to add additional space to -- and the light to properties. but it appears that they're

adding -- that's becoming an additional living level from the way they're doing it and if you look at their current as built, there's living space down below. wouldn't that constitute four levels, three above another living level? >> right, but they're showing an office in the attic area, an existing office. i don't know whether there was -- >> then it's an existing four story building. >> that's not what we're sure about. it's 1900 square feet. it's two stories in the property profile. that tells me -- and they didn't count the garage as a story. they've changed that in the building code, but if you look at the city assessor's records -- i have it here. i can put it on the overhead if you wish. i'll put it on the overhead. >> if you look at the property, there's a den in the lower section. is that original period to the construction do you think? >> i don't know. i looked up the records today, and i didn't see plans for that. there's definitely a garage, an existing garage. i'm not sure what i am sorry was

done there. it is in the property profile. it's three stories. 1910 square feet. and, you know, this has happened to us before where buildings are misrepresented. i'm not saying that's the case here. but it possibly is an issue because of the sprinkler requirement. >> yeah. exactly. okay. thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, then we'll take our rebuttal from the appellant. >> first of all, i double checked with cynthia to make sure that i was told when i filed my appeal -- and i also doubled checked with her and she confirmed it -- even though i had a written statement when i first filed the appeal, i had up to 7 minutes to bring up as many different issues, whether i had it in writing originally on. so for him to say the only issue is the dutch gutter is

incorrect. secondly, like i said, our houses are exact mirror images. once again, i just want to show you where he's putting that office space and what he says on the original plans that they're demoing, that there was an office there, which there was -- there is no possible way on that slope because he's putting a dormer in the area where the existing office was so that they can raise the roof line so they can add that full bath in there. then they have the office space in the center war the peaked roof is. that is an additional 4th floor coming up. i have to go through my bathroom, through a trapdoor to get to the attic. the neighbor on the other side of me, who has the exact same build-up, goes through her bedroom closet because i've been to her house. she showed me where hers was. and on the architectural drawings that are at the building dbi, it also -- when it shows the facades of the houses, it shows each house, my house, their house, and the house on

the other side of them as three story buildings. so unfortunately -- and then when i did bring it up with the bakers -- i don't know if you can read that, but it says -- well, i'll read it to you. i'll show it to you. we are aware of all this and peninsula not to -- plan to put a sprinkler in the house. we're putting it into a legal contract. the good news is she tells me in an e-mail, the dutch gutter thing, i've been burned before from my old neighbor. i've had numerous of my friends that have the same thing happen to them. i've already had it happen to me. it's not a matter of touching the gutter. it's when you start ripping everything out and bringing down the plywood. if you miss something that's not waterproof down, the water will go under the tile and under the dutch gutter in the crack between us and that's where i had wall water damage. so i also brought my contract i

gave them right after i filed the appeal because obviously they weren't going to sign anything sight unseen. so i did have a contract and they didn't like it. do you want me to read it to you? >> no. >> no? okay. i guess that's it. i'm just asking that a sprinklet they want to do to their home as long as it's legal and it doesn't damage my property. so i'm asking for an agreement to be put in because i agree with joe. they have to replace that roof. it needed to be replaced ten years ago. i can't imagine spending $4 50,000 on your interior without replacing the roof. they have major water damage. that's why it's gutted. i would like to have an agreement in place for the roof. i would like to have the party wall or whatever that common wall or whatever, whatever to building code. mr. duffy, what's the building code for insulation between

walls? is. >> please direct your comments to us. >> and thirdly, i want it to go in legally when they're adding a 4th floor level. that's not existing. >> thank you. >> i do have a couple questions. as we've had this evening earlier and as we've alluded to before, so a dutch gutter is like a fence situation. >> exactly. >> i mean, do you have an agreement from your prior neighbor allowing to you do a dutch gutter? that means your contractor was on his roof. >> you know, we went -- i have paperwork and stuff about him, you know -- >> but do you understand what i'm saying? >> yeah. >> so the thing is, is that as the permit holder has brought up, i mean, there's really not much we can -- that we can do about that situation. i mean, that's a neighbor to neighbor situation.

regarding the sprinklers, we're going to look into that. >> all right. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> and the walls? >> well, i'll discuss this when we're in deliberation. >> thank you. >> rebuttal from the permit holder, mr. hammond. >> thank you. with deference to inspector duffy, we did submit copies of the plans which you should have in your packet, and it does show the existing third level. it shows an office space, and i think critically, it shows stairs up to that space. i don't know what's in ms. momota's house, but it's not a ladder situation where you

have to crawl up into some space. so given the existing conditions, i think the law is clear that where you have three stories of habitable space and you're going to convert a not habitable basement into a habitable space, then there's no sprinkler requirement. and i would also note that this was not an issue that slips through or that wasn't vetted. we can tell because when we look at the permit summary, which i believe is also in your materials, it states that it's a remodel of a single family residence, including new kitchen, plumbing, electrical. no work on facade. no fire alarm or sprinkler work. so that's stated right there in the four-line permit details

report. as a result, we know this is a vetted issue. it's not just an issue that snuck through. and my understanding is that originally, it was believed that there would be a sprinkler requirement, but because this is an existing three story with a not habitable garage underneath, there's no requirement to sprinkle, even if you are converting that not habitable space to habitable space. i'm happy to answer if i questions. >> sure. mr. hammond, we just had -- i don't see the e-mail in front of me, so i can't notice whether the address was and all that. but the appellant read an e-mail affidavit that says we will put sprinklers in the house. are you reneging on behalf of

your client on that commitment? >> i don't think that she was aware of the fact that it's not required. >> that doesn't matter. there was a request neighbor to neighbor, will you put in sprinklers in your house, and what i was just hearing -- again, i can't read that far and i could request that we postpone this and we get that all printed up, but what i heard was we will put sprinklers in the house. so regardless of whether it's required or not, there was an implied contract between the -- your client and the neighbor. i'm asking you, on behalf of your neighbor, are you reneging on your client's commitment she put in writing. >> i'm not reneging. the reason is she thought it was required. this house is gutted. there's a lot of work going on. >> so with your permission, if we move forward under further

conversation amongst the commissioners, you won't feel bad if we put in sprinklers given that your client said it was okay. >> this is a really expensive thing if it's required, then we have to do it and we'll do it. if it's not required, you know, just because she thought that -- she's acting in good faith. >> did you get your question answered? >> your time is up. >> the answer is yes. >> departments, any rebuttal? >> actually, i had a question for inspector duffy -- murphy any way. sorry. >> duffy. [ laughter ] >> hyphenated tonight, buddy. >> your question, commissioner honda? >> so the appellant here said that her house is identical and there's a trapdoor through the bathroom.

right? has anyone verified the as-built conditions of this property? that might be something that would be worth looking into? if someone through it in there and it's demoed already, you can tell if that's original to the property as per the lumber and how the design was, i'm pretty sure. right. >> we wouldn't have -- it's good faith on the drawings. >> and i believe the department is considering some rules indicating that they're going to verify as built conditions prior. >> that's for the demolition process many we're going to start doing that. correct. you know, as i say, all we have are records at dbi and the city. we keep historical records. if you have something that's 1900 square feet and then you see four levels, i would be wondering about it. i have no problem going out there and doing a site visit. >> that's a concern, too. there's 1900 square feet on four levels. how is that even possible when you have two levels that are --

>> well, that's -- what do you want us to do with this? >> do you want to continue it so that i can look into it further? i have no problem with that. >> you can do your thing on the permit. >> yes. >> on your own time. >> that's right. you can approve the permit and i can -- >> or you want to resolve this in a final way? >> well, if the permit -- if we find out, for example, that it wasn't four levels of occupancy that's reflected on the permit, the permit is reflecting four existing levels of occupancy, legal levels. >> then it would have the permit application would have to be changed. >> it would need a revision permit. that would -- i disagree with mr. hammond there respectfully. i think dbi would be looking at the sprinkler require many going from three to four, but it's entirely possible it's an existing -- that's -- we can deal with it on a continuance or approve