line was 4 feet and combrours were required. >> my understanding that maybe i'll let the inspector joe duffynswer that. >> commissioners would you like inspector duffy to come up. >> we want to make that worth his while we're paying that department. >> good evening, commissioners joe duffy i was on my way home. >> (laughter). >> so that's the question you know considering that a lot of properties in san francisco what we call attached and have properties unattached but when you put lot line windows the planning codes says within 3 feet you don't have to have them like fire protected and their expensive; is that correct. >> for that occupancy it will be 3 feet for the single-family dwellings so the property via the property is single-family dwelling so it is two units 3 feet you can have to do with 3 feet 3 foot 3 to the property line and because when the window is existing in the 1940s i don't think we'll tell them. >> are tree grandfathered in. >> pretty much normally what happens if their are windows closer sometimes the planning code will make them notch to protect the light and the remin

joe duffy has been extraordinarily helpful and understanding and he has met with me, many, many timesnd i have been trying to close this many, many times, and he has been extraordinary patient. but i want him to just talk on the comments that he made, and how the department should have flagged the lack of a planning review at the time that this permit was signed off, and so these permits were signed off and dbi and came out and saw this property and walked on it and inspected it and signed it off. and according to joe duffy and other people in the department, they may have made a mistake at that time. by, not checking that a planning review should have been done at the time. and should not have signed it off and he advised me that further training was planned for inspectors to check that there was an extra special requirements which would be way beyond our basis of knowledge, we have no clue what is going on. we are just playing, people, and city fees and, we are paying contractors and we are paying, everybody and we trust everyone, and we try to trust everyone, and i want to make a p

joe duffy has been extraordinarily helpful and understanding and he has met with me, many, many times and i have been trying to close this many, many times, and he has been extraordinary patient. but i want him to just talk on the comments that he made, and how the department should have flagged the lack of a planning review at the time that this permit was signed off, and so these permits were signed off and dbi and came out and saw this property and walked on it and inspected it and signed it off. and according to joe duffy and other people in the department, they may have made a mistake at that time. by, not checking that a planning review should have been done at the time. and should not have signed it off and he advised me that further training was planned for inspectors to check that there was an extra special requirements which would be way beyond our basis of knowledge, we have no clue what is going on. we are just playing, people, and city fees and, we are paying contractors and we are paying, everybody and we trust everyone, and we try to trust everyone, and i want to make a

line was 4 feet and combrours were required. >> my understanding that maybe i'll let the inspector joe duffywer that. >> commissioners would you like inspector duffy to come up. >> we want to make that worth his while we're paying that department. >> good evening, commissioners joe duffy i was on my way home. >> (laughter). >> so that's the question you know considering that a lot of properties in san francisco what we call attached and have properties unattached but when you put lot line windows the planning codes says within 3 feet you don't have to have them like fire protected and their expensive; is that correct. >> for that occupancy it will be 3 feet for the single-family dwellings so the property via the property is single-family dwelling so it is two units 3 feet you can have to do with 3 feet 3 foot 3 to the property line and because when the window is existing in the 1940s i don't think we'll tell them. >> are tree grandfathered in. >> pretty much normally what happens if their are windows closer sometimes the planning code will make them notch to protect the light and the reminde

line was 4 feet and combrours were required. >> my understanding that maybe i'll let the inspector joe duffynswer that. >> commissioners would you like inspector duffy to come up. >> we want to make that worth his while we're paying that department. >> good evening, commissioners joe duffy i was on my way home. >> (laughter). >> so that's the question you know considering that a lot of properties in san francisco what we call attached and have properties unattached but when you put lot line windows the planning codes says within 3 feet you don't have to have them like fire protected and their expensive; is that correct. >> for that occupancy it will be 3 feet for the single-family dwellings so the property via the property is single-family dwelling so it is two units 3 feet you can have to do with 3 feet 3 foot 3 to the property line and because when the window is existing in the 1940s i don't think we'll tell them. >> are tree grandfathered in. >> pretty much normally what happens if their are windows closer sometimes the planning code will make them notch to protect the light and the remin

i know that joe duffy works awfully hard and he is here on many different commissions and board and he has a huge work load, and every place is building in the city. and he has been generous with his time. but, i mean, we can't really, it is not fair to hold us responsible if the city tell us this is good. we have to go by the paperwork, what other choice do we have? and i am saying and i asked and i asked joe, you know, stand by your work. if you agree to do somebody to somebody else, you are doing your job and you agree to do it. and you say i will do it, and you stand behind that. and we are just, we are asking the city to do the same thing. and it is extremely good news that the variance have been carried forward. that is the solution that mark wal lace of dbi suggested and there is one wrinkle in it and that is that we have not sued the neighbor but the neighbor has sued us and this has caused my wife and i extraordinary emotional harm and damage. now it is not your concern to worry about. we are being sued. but here is the point, they will stop at nothing. they have threatened pr

the zoning administrator and representing the planning department and planning commission intishgs joe duffy is expected representing the department of building inspection and joined by deputy city attorney ann pierson and douglas representing the electronic devices are prohibited. please carry on conversations out in the hallway. permit holders and others have up to 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must conclude their comments within 7 minutes, participants not affiliated have up to 3 minutes - no rebuttal. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of the minutes, members of the public are asked, not required to submit a speaker card or business card to the clerk. speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium. the board welcomes your comments. there are customer satisfaction forms available. if you have a question about the schedule, speak to the staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow we are located at 1650 mission street, suite 304. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable