however, if you do not have to have egress by the code. if that is a single door, it could be located anywhere on the wall. >> i do not think anybody is concerned over whether there is one door or two. there is concern over the railing. the left doorjamb -- that is where the bring he wants to move is. -- where the railing he wants to move is, and that is the point that constricts my fire access. i think i currently have 32 inches. it is 36 feet in the code. commissioner hillis: 36 inches. >> it can be one panel. i do not think anybody cares. it is just the size of the door -- it does not help us. commissioner fung: i get what you are saying. i will limit that, but i am not sure i have enough votes. i would restate this in the following way. that the rail on the north side be reduced up to 1 foot 6 inches, and it can be less if it maintains clearance between that jam -- the north jam and the corner post. graphically looking at it, i think it is easily accomplished. she is either going to move it 1.5 feet, or if it is a little bit less, 36 i

our biggest problem is the means of egress out of that unit. if you -- i can assure the planter a quick. -- i can show you the plan real quick. >> they can come back and paint a picture for us about how serious the issues are and that is why we ask your client, i am assuring it is your client to look into the feasibility of doing something that would diminish the chance there would be a life safety issue. we're not requiring that. we do not have the ability to require that. we're asking you to look into that. if after some time has passed, you feel like that is not feasible, when mr. duffy comes back with something the causes concern, you have to request it be taken off the call the chair and the should be brought back before the board. >> think you. -- thank you. >> there is a conflict. you're asking dbi to do some research and report back and then you're looking at a rather lengthy continuance and those two things do not seem to drive. >> you have to calendar for the report back. >> before a year. quex it not want to set a date for that now?

there is nothing being done to block reasonable ingraham and egress. they are completely cooperative. there is a line of communication. ms. weesner has changed her attitude but they are still open to work with her and limit the intrusion to her in any way. president garcia: the other question i have is a comment. this exhibit d, i guess that is yours, page 17, it just seems strange -- it seems like there is a logical inconsistency that someone would have exclusive use of a common area. >> you are looking at exhibits b? that must be from the appellant. >> and i am not criticizing you, but you used the same language. how can it be a common area and someone could have exclusive use? >> under the city's zoning, it is a common area. under the ccnr's that govern the use of the property, it is exclusive use to mr. specter. that is in the ccnr's that have been provided to the appellants. they provided you with the evidence that he has the right to construct a roof deck without her approval. she is here to say the notice was not appropriate when she does not ha

to get to the unit is illegal and our corridor for our egress corridor is non-complying. we have 21 inches to get through and this would service the two existing buildings and the illegal unit which is a concern for the art department. and if you have questions, let me know. thank you. >> what is the age of this building? >> this was 1912. 1908. >> in its current configuration? >> that is what we believe. >> you have photos of the building? >> the subject building is the yellow building. you can see the the garage structure to the side of the main building which contains the two dwelling units. ? that door is the door to that separation between the two buildings. >> that is correct. as i mentioned previously, maybe i will go into the time of the -- if the permit holder has additional comments. they could remove the parking space zone to remain -- required under the code. they could expand to the front, have a window of the fraud that would do with the exposure issue so that is the yard variants and open variance. it would have the rear yard issue and building code issue.

equipment has been in there so there has been blockage of both the garage as well as some of the egress to the actual condominium unit. i have pictures of that as well. this is one item that has taken place -- there is a port-a-potty on the right hand side that still remains even know the permit was put on hold. there are construction vehicles that have been blocking the ingress-egress, the brown rot on the left-hand side. -- the brown garage on the left- hand side. the final picture shows the usage pri is a little bit burglary. i am sorry for that. this is the outline of a car and the entire garage area is being used for construction. we would ask that this permit be revoked. thank you. president garcia: when you come back for your three minutes, would you be prepared to talk about something aside from -- most of these are technical issues having to do with lot numbers and problems that you think exist with this particular permit. i do not know that you presented anything as to why your client would prefer this project not go forward aside from these technical issues and what affect it

that is a means of egress. >> not buy the building code. that is not permitted. if there were a swinging door adjacent to it -- you could go to the garage, but you still need a swinging door. president garcia: you talk about the flue. that could be -- that could not be removed because it is serving -- >> the furnace and hot water heaters. president garcia: very difficult. but could it be rerouted? >> i believe so. president garcia: that is not of itself prohibitive? >> we could move it. president garcia: i am not sure i understand with your point about the reason for the wall is within 10 feet of a new staircase being built at the permit holder's property, and if that staircase would be moved in some direction -- what would the distance be that would have to be moved to obviate the need for this wall? >> about 3 feet. it would line up with the rest of the stair. this particular portion only serves the deck to the third floor. the stair in their design moves to the west, in line with a spot that would not affect the windows of 2323. i am not sure why the stair tak

to bring it up to code for egress, 7.5 feet as required. -- is required. this would impact the foundations of both structures, a sewer pipes and it would be need to read -- be reinforced. this is a major engineering endeavor and the cost is about $200,000. this is beyond my financial means. an alternative is to create -- turn the garage into -- it would have an impact on value and functionality. bringing it to codes would be over $100,000. it is something i cannot afford. the permit consultant is here. she has the details of what codes we believe the apartment is violating end a general contractor who has been helping me figure out the costs for these different scenarios. i have an initial summary of those if you would like. by granting this appeal, i will be exposed to financial and criminal liabilities. i do not wish to be a part of an illegal endeavor. and the other option is not viable. -- any other option is not viable. thank you for your time. >> what are the criminal consequences? >> if it is unsafe, i could be sued for unsafe housing. i am not sure

inspection before applying to find a way to be able to keep the existing spiral staircase as our means of egress. the concern they had was will be you -- will be lower unit have access to the roof? we need it to only have access to the upper unit. so we have put a metal gate around the top of the stairs. if i move the railing in, we would not be able to get to and from the deck. president garcia: would you go back to photograph two? show me where someone would be standing to take pictures in photograph three. >> this is better to show you on the floor plan. it is taken from the front of a -- in front of the building with a wide angle lens. photograph three is taken from the back of the building. i am standing right at the edge to get a picture of the back, as far as i could without falling. commissioner fung: and the height of the deck of the neighbor, the appellant -- >> their deck is over the top of the garage. it is on the second level of their plot. commissioner fung: 1 full floor below the top of your roof? >> it is two story is below our roof. -- stories below our roof. >> any other questi

to bring it up to code for egress, 7.5 feet as required. -- is required. this would impact the foundations of both structures, a sewer pipes and it would be need to read -- be reinforced. this is a major engineering endeavor and the cost is about $200,000. this is beyond my financial means. an alterniv

there is a secondary egress point on to geary, and that will be used for an emergency situation. that every day exit will be closed, so the exit will only be on those two for traffic. on the west off of franklin street on the left side, you can see the loading dock. a large loading facility where trucks can pull in, maneuver inside the loading facility or back into their loading dock and then exit on franklin street as well. north of the loading dock, you can see the emergency drop-off area, so the emergency is going to be off of franklin street and not off of geary and post. as you can see, it will be on post street. there is also a small ambulance parking area with access right next to the emergency room, and that is it. there is also a shuttle bus to -- shuttle bus loading zone for the buses to load, and also, you can see on geary street, on the ride, there is a new muini bus stop -- new muni stop. that will be better for the driveways, so that is the hospital. here is the medical office building. again, geary is on the bottom, van ness on the left. this parking garage will be

their search was they would have to remove what was there or find a way to add a second means of egress. that was a $10,000 problem. >> i think any to chip in your. things have changed about second means of redress for homes. only one exit is required for each unit. this created that. >> we go back to their units, my friend rented out, but has never complained about it too many people. what kind of problem could my friend get in this kind of situation? >> [inaudible] >> there are endless problems you can get into renting an illegal unit. you are an attorney. you want to talk about that? you can leave it open. >> i will leave it open. >> their problems related to the city and planning enforcement, probably related to the tenant, who has rights to implied warranty of have the ability, and all the other things that tenants are deserving -- tenant desert. is the land blurred permitted to collect rent? -- the landlord permitted to collect rent? >> [inaudible] >> that is an excellent point. we will talk about the value. let me say, if it has existed for a long time, that does not make it ok.

gregg and ken now they're limiting, every building can only use one egress access, so you've got longf students trying to get through just one tiny little entrance. some profs have given up and are holding classes outdoors whenever possible. are you concerned that all of the automatic evacuations that have been taking place may be the wrong approach? >> the best practice, contrary to what is sort of intuitive to the lay person is to evaluate the threat on a case by case basis, by school and law enforcement, to avoid automatic evacuations. one of the bigger concerns, unless there's an obvious device or immediate imminent threat, but the biggest concern is when you have professors individually choosing to go outside of the security procedures and take someone outside, the whole class. that could expose them to greater out-- outside visibility and a potential target for a shooting or other type of violent attack outside than if they stayed inside and worked with their security officials. so the person who's going off on their own may have good intentions, but security that's heightened i

both create an ingress and egress. >>> another story, police just released a computer generated photo of what mad lin would look like today. joe morris is a consultant on 48 hours and he joins us now. ing thanks for being with us is. the uk please say it is quite possible tha madeleine mccann s still alive. >> i do not believe that she is alive at this time. i believe the family has invested a lot of time and resources and their hopes are that mattie is still alive. unfortunately, that is where the investigation went wrong from the beginning. they never dealt with this investigation as if it was a crime originally and what happens is the parents didn't level and tell the whole truth to the police. >> judge jeanine: what to you mean they didn't investigate it as if it was a crime? it was a missing child in a foreign country. >> when the child went missing everybody thought that the child walked out the door. the child was left in the apartment unsupervised and they thought the child was in the compound which is a resort for families. they looked all over the place for the child. it was