duffey wants to say something. i want to help people understand that - the comparison. if you look at i don't know who's brief this is it is exhibit g. so everyone sees what you just saw so everyone has the benefit of that and you can still come to the same conclusion. about midway there's a 3 dash a on the bottom right. and then if you turn to the submission we just received from the gentleman. you can see it's not the last page a-103 no, it's this one. >> that looks different from mine. there 2a 03s. so put them side by side and you can see the difference. this the the upper level plan proposed. if i'm doing a wrong comparison correct me. >> there are 230 one. the one is before you being appealed and the one prior to that is the changed. the changes are bubble there's a big bubble and i'm trying to show you the path of egress and the door at the on top of the stairs >> i was looking did second a-103 but the second one dated friday you can tell the plan is significantly all of the evidence and not been presented to the appellant until november 8th? >> there's no signif

duffey >> right. >> good evening commissions joe duffey. i did go back to the plan check staff that approved the plan previously and on the plans we used an a b bulletin. when i saw that on the plans i saw that wasn't the proper procure because the property line was split it should have been an easement. we had a couple of meetings and involved ron hesitate the chief building inspector. we last met with the architect the owner and the contractor as well. so following that meeting and there - wisp looking at options off one exit to the roof-deck. what happened 81 at the first meeting they used a preapplication meeting process with mr. tom the chief building inspector to allow one exit from the roof-deck that was held yesterday. i have a response from ron chief building inspector and basically, the architect used some sections in the code those discussions at the meetings the fact that this building was sprinkled and we had one on the roof. the occupant said it would allow 4 additional occupants which the building code allows for a private ro

duffey. >> commissioners just looking at the permit applications on the approval process it meets all the building codes for structural and for the heights of the railings et. i know the appellant mentioned setbacks but ear used to setbacks and this extends into the backyards. it wasn't the same violation it was compliant by annoying we didn't issue a notice of violation but notice there was a deck reconstructed without a permit. we attempted to get in but they exploited with the intent before we got in so no notice was issued it was complied with the complaint >> how much farther out has that been extended. >> it's about 6 to 8 feet i can double check that for sure. 6 feet i hear >> and what's the maximum it can be extended under the code. >> that's a planning department code it's probably at max. >> okay. i have a question i don't know which of you could answer the question. actually do you want an answer to your question first >> i don't know. >> it could go to either. whoever can answer. with respect to i think the word used by the permit holder is the facade or any type of planti

duffey >> commissioners, i have little to say. i looked at the reputing from the building department point of view that was reviewed properly. one item on the excavation the project sponsor would notify the neighbors steno days prior to starting the excavation in the building code and as in the building code on your property and you've got a neighboring property you need to give them a 10 day notice to review our drawings your from - this case i wouldn't anticipate any problems but that code section still needs to be addressed. >> have you seen a lot of permits taken out in pg&e in that area. >> i think pg&e wouldn't pull permits on all 7 but certainly i know the goods leaks are all over the area. they arrived in no time when i called them. but i think their referred to pg&e primarily >> actress any public comment. seeing none, wool have rebuttal starting with the appellant >> on roubl i want to ask dbi and what's the other one? planning >> how much do the know about the guideline. >> it's your time to - you want to know if you fo

duffey. >> commissioner the building permit seemed to be approved properly it was for stucco replacement and the windows on the issues regarding the lead or asbestos we require those measures to be taken to protect you see the north open the scaffolding they have to do the proper cleaning up. we would send out someone from the asbestos department and but i don't see anything on the permit that deals with code issues >> public comment on this item. please stipulate forward >> hello. my name is linda i live in apartment 3 on fulton street. i moved in july 1st of this year. when we first viewed the apartment the landlord said it would be two weeks and they were going to replace the window. two months after i moved in i got a notice and this project was an xeefb construction that would take months. on this notice i don't know if i should try - >> put that on the overhead >> but it said it would take 5 months. i sent him my out country and he responded a few weeks later saying that he had forewarned me about this and that same day he posted another letter on envy door and says oh, you knew ab

there are ways to aid the time period for the work go to be performed and we heard from inspector duffey any concerns oh, hose not here like asbestos and lead can be raised and inspected and have someone come out and if that has an impact. there are health concerns. noise mitigation measures i think would be addressed through time limitations on the construction. that's one way it's within our jurisdiction. i think it's - yeah. i think the issue of the actual need for the permits themselves is difficult to get around >> no, i agree. my only concern is that if you put yourself in their position not the ones that we're not aware of this and you move into a property and expect a concern quality of life and that quality of life is not there >> as the commissioner pointed out that's not a meter before us right now. i would be inclined to deny the appeal as well but i'll be open to conditioning on the hours ideas is a good one. i'm not sure about the timing on the permit. because they are not going to harm their own building so terms of delaying the start or something >> i wasn't talking about

. >> the suggestions from inspector duffey i'll agree. >> and bamboo is quickly growing. >> and planter boxes to be included along the appellants property; is that right. >> yeah. i'd like to hear from the permit holder if you're understanding what it is i'm doing i want to make sure your understanding. yes, please >> the planning department is this growing bamboo or a businessman both type screen. >> planets. >> i'm sorry i've seen those bamboo skroenz like a fence. >> but i thought you wanted to planters attached. >> only along the fence line. >> i didn't hear the word mraerpts i'm sorry. i wanted you to understand what it is i'm trying to propose through a motion >> i do. i guess my question what we're going for if you don't mind putting up. if you look at right here the actual plant. so we would want to plant bamboo so it's able to go over the whole fence or put it in planters on the deck and of course, >> planters on the decks. >> excellent. is this going to be me to change the planned >> yes. >> the planting is not on the did he know we'll put the language in the dbi plans and the

duffey >> commissioners, i judge wanted to add all the building permits are pretty simple fixing up building. the one permit on montgomery street that was language on the end i returned to the site today and met with mr. rubbing at the scene and they hadn't started the process. if you can get a permit it's not the kind of language we want on a permit. tolysis 15 hundred stoves that needed replaced and there's no believe. the work hadn't started. if there is any issues during the process i'm sure the cloy can file a complaint. >> are you going to change the language in regards to the studs needed. >> after that we have a discussion this was the material around the window and any more than that we need a permit. >> you will clarify that in writing. >> yes. yes. >> thank you. anything mr. t. any public comment. seeing none, commissioners the matters are submitted >> i'm going to deny all appeals based on the code of the dbi. gentleman >> we have a motion from the president to deny all four appeals and uphold all four permits on the basis their coincide compliant. on that motion to uphold (calli