as mr. kornfield explained two cases ago, when there is work on a building that was not done with a permit and you submit plans that refer to it as existing, you are in effect saying this is legally permit it worked. if it is not legally permitted and the drawing is reflected as existing, the drawings are in error. avoiding the clarity of drawing, where is the concrete cap and where is it not capped? where is brick? has anybody from dbi got out and looked at what the existing conditions are compared with what is in the drawings? is ms. wuerfel correct or not? that should be a factual matter and should not be something left to debate. finally, is there to buy for attic rafters and the building? this is a little wall section at what happens at the intersection of were the rafter tales come out. if they are 2x4 on the ceiling or attic, it is not habitable space, and they probably come down as refractors on 24-inch centers and overhang. if you put in 2x10 rafters, did he know the plans called for 2x10 rafters to go and so it would be habitable space and it would and drop the entire roof and make i

whereas, as was also mentioned by mr. kornfield, the other is a same size. this is where this provides the appropriate "-- . angle within the limits of its capabilities. but it took me a little while to figure out that this was the case. what happened is that they added all of the roof drains, and that is a long way to drape across. the roof framing -- a long way to drain across. the gable. the problem is is if you go back into the actual definition of what either party said, the appellant wants to do, and first but indicated it wanted to do 6 inches above. therefore, their appeal was incorrect initially because they're drawing reflects something different. that problem also is exacerbated by the department, because the department says it is 6 inches above the roof, then the length of drainage from one end of the other then gets a exacerbated, and it creates a problem, which is why they were saying they were going to reduce it to 21 inches, because they wanted a certain amount of parapet above. and so, that is what created this, but it has also created other

mr. kornfield, i am wondering if that is not within our jurisdiction as well. it does not seem to be part of this nov. perhaps it would be. but after looking at this, i am inclined to agree with commissioner fung. i believe he was suggesting go ahead and deny the appeal. is that right? commissioner hwang: i was not really following. i don't understand -- looking at the list and denied the appeal? vice president goh: what i was suggesting is that things are either covered by the existing nov or are not within our jurisdiction. if they are within the nov that is existing, it is up to the district inspector to make sure those things are taking care of in the course of the work she is planning to do. commissioner hwang: i guess as i listen to you and commissioners fung and garcia, i am thinking at this point that the permit holder wants to just go straight with whatever the permit holder wants to do, without really working with and communicating -- i mean, maybe that is not necessarily the fault of the permit holder. maybe there is fault on both sides. but when cas

mr. kornfield, i am wondering if that is not within our jurisdiction as well. it does not seem to be part of this nov. perhaps it would be. but after looking at this, i am inclined to agree with commissioner fung. i believe he was suggesting go ahead and deny the appeal. is that right? commissioner hwang: i was not really following. i don't understand -- looking at the list and denied the appeal? vice president goh: what i was suggesting is that things are either covered by the existing nov or are not within our jurisdiction. if they are within the nov that is exng

as they might be. we have had cases here where the department hasn't been able to find drawings, and it is frustrating. i also know that d.b.i. at least under mr. kornfield has done a huge job in reoriginal ying -- reorganizing and making their files more accessible. i saw that in a tour of d.b.i. in reading the e-mail request from the pell apt -- appellant, it was hard for me to say what exactly was missing from the information that she had. that is difficult to say -- it would be difficult for me to conclude that she didn't have a complete packet. i didn't see -- we didn't have the plans. i saw the plans on the overhead, but i didn't see anything that struck me -- given that there is a variance, the variance has already been finalized. i didn't see anything that struck me as particularly egregious in this deck, and i would be inclined to uphold the department and uphold the permit pending comments from my fellow commissioners. >> i move a similar opinion. the issue before us is what has been discussed through the materials, which is the legalization of this deck. the one thing we want to make sure that the department has done is that it conforms to the

as you can see, there are plumbing issues they have not dealt with or electrical issues. all of this has been done without any inspection whatsoever. when will this be legalized? i don't understand how mr. kornfield is able to say it is ok to put excavation of all of that crawlspace without having any plans for a retaining wall. and this is right on the property line. this is a very difficult situation, and if we don't have the support of our city that is going to employ the coats, what does that mean to us neighbors? there are no plans. there are no preconditions on the north, east, and south sides. the only. is there is on the chimney, the base. i am sorry, but we need help to get to the truth of this matter. president peterson: thank you. it commissioner hwang: ms. wuerfel, i have a question about your attempt to communicate with the permit holder spree -- permit holders. in your brief, you have stated that you along with neighbors attended two meetings in 2007 with brand new plants and then the owners applied for a site permit in september, which is currently in the process of being withdrawn. in november, 2008, they moved out. have you had any communication with the property owners? >> no, s

opinion, as my own thought is it is tempered by the fact anything you put down is leading to a potential fault. i think that may be part of the concern by the parties. commissioner garcia: mr. kornfield said there are times where these plants are called for. to me, this would have been one of those cases that called for the plans. it looks like two want to talk. is up to madam president whether anybody gets to talk or whom first. president peterson: that is not the case. commissioner garcia: that is the case. >> thank you, madam president. i will be brief. i want to make perfectly clear we are looking for some descriptive list from which to start. right now we are in a gray zone. we need to look forward to pictures and words together. we are happy to work this out, but we are looking for something discreet. in terms of a condition, you can narrowly do that, with the understanding it is up to dbi to make the determination, again consistent with code enforcement powers and procedures anyway. that is all we're looking for is some certainty. nothing is perfect, but some way so that both parties are on the same page. i hope that helps. thank you. >> thank you, president peterson, commissi