the brief said commissioner peterson: what did you basically offer? >> to surrender the condition of having three panels opened. it was either one open or three open, and that one acts as a doorway in and out of whatever that space with deep, almost like a fourth door, so it would be just wonder -- one can open, four panels close. commissioner peterson: ok i could withdraw mine. >> is that a switch in door? commissioner garcia: of course, you have a right to ask questions because we are considering something that affects you.

>> even the swinging door is going to allow, and i think that is what you're proposing, completing one door open and. that noise is going to come out of that bar. we talked about a swinging door. commissioner fung: commissioner peterson, are you still leaning towards wanting to resolve this tonight? commissioner peterson: i think my concern would be address by amending condition a. i do not know if anybody would agree with me. commissioner fung: i would like them to go through some sort technical analysis and see what some sort of a longer-term solution would be. commissioner peterson: that is fine. a continuance.

commissioner garcia: october 5? >> i am actually out of town that week. commissioner garcia: go forward or better -- back towards? >> i would prefer the next week. commissioner fung: i do not think this -- think this needs to go out that long. commissioner garcia: i think we will have to accommodate somebody else's schedule. yes, commissioner peterson is not going to be here. >> august 24. >> i mean, if you guys want to do it, i mean, you what to do it earlier? commissioner garcia: there is a

certain amount of harm to the project sponsor the longer we put it out, because there is a loss of revenue. >> september, is there some day in september? that is good. that would give us time, i think. christian garcia coat: i move that we continue this until september 21 so the parties can see if they can reach some solution that will satisfy both sides and this board. commissioner fung: in the testimony. commissioner garcia: thank you. >> -- commissioner goh: how many

weeks? i'm going to vote against this, because they had enough time. an oral report of two minutes, three minutes at the next -- commissioner fung: you want a brief? you do not want to continue it. commissioner garcia: why do we not vote on the continuance, and then we will set parameters. >> that is what was said, no additional briefing? commissioner garcia: does additional briefing lead to more public testimony? >> there can the public testimony on -- if you hear testimony from the party's at the next hearing, there can be

public testimony, public comment on whatever. commissioner garcia: so what is the difference between that and not having a brief? i always would want to try to understand something when it is presented orally, so i would want a five-page brief. we are hoping there will be a settlement, but if there is not a settlement, perhaps something will be said or done by one side that may sway one of the commissioners to shut the door on the fact that if there is no settlement this thing is dead, and that is unreasonable. responding to our city attorney. i do not know. i do not care how long, personally. if you think you need more than five pages to explain something reasonably technical, i think that is fine.

what is normally, 12? let's put it in half, six. that would be great, or you call us and tell us it has been resolved. commissioner goh: do you want simultaneous briefings? commissioner garcia: whenever it takes. i think simultaneous briefings. >> so the motion is to continue the matter until september 21 for the reasons stated, six pages of briefs allowed, and they will be due prior to the september 21 hearing. commissioner garcia: which will be september 15. >> on the motion to continue this matter, once again, to september 21, three votes are needed to pass this. commissioner fung?

commissioner fuing: -- aye. commissioner goh: no. commissioner peterson: aye. >> this matter is continued until september 21. >> calling than item number nine, appeal-11-077. margaret foster, sherida ireton, and sheriann ireton, against the department of building inspection, for 122 tiffany avenue, protesting the issuance to john britton of a permit to

alter a building, and we will begin after this clears. it will take a moment to have folks settle out. commissioner fung: i guess i cannot throw these away. i will just put it -- >> ok, you will have seven minutes. >> president goh, vice president garcia, my name is mcfarlin. commissioner garcia: you can adjust that so you do not have to lean into it, so you will be more comfortable. >> i am more comfortable. thank you. i am representing the appellants, , foster, -- margaret foster, sherida ireton,

and sheriann ireton. relief they are looking for from the board. the appellants filed this appeal for the very narrow issue of assuring that the permit holder, john britton, who is also the owner and the landlord of this, does not use this permit in order to eliminate the appellants' long-term laundry facilities at this. they recognize and have never disputed that the notice of violations issued by the department of building inspection do, in fact, identified and list serious problems with conditions of the decks and the stairs at this property.

on top of that, the appellants welcome repair work if it is in the scope that he will conduct pursuant to this permit. they welcome that repair work to actually abate these notices of violation. it is very important that the board understand that that is not an issue here at all. the only issue here, once again, is that based on permit holder's communications with appellants based on the permit holders lack of response to the appellants' fears over the last few months in regards to their laundry, they filed this appeal. hopefully with better communication between the parties, we would not be here tonight, but unfortunately, there has been very little if any response from permit holder to indicate to the appellants

that he will not, in fact, use this permit to eliminate their laundry facilities. all of this is a brief to, maybe a little bit too much repetitively in the statement appeal but the appellants submitted to the board. i would like to quickly go through the reasons why this board should, in fact, preserve the appellants' laundry facilities. first, two are disabled, one severely disabled. she lives on the ground for, sherida. she is quite simply incapable of doing her laundry at a remote location. since she moved in in 1973, she has always had laundry facilities on the service porch outside of her apartment, and as

we tried to point out in the brief, even the notice of violations do not address any issues with sherida ireton's on ground service porch. if i read this correctly along with the pictures that were submitted by the permit holder, the issues here have to deal with the post's leading up to the top floor deck or service porch on the second unit, the deterioration and the rotting of the top floors service porch, and sherida, who would be most impacted by the elimination, her apartment is on the bottom floor. it is their position that her laundry facilities should not be interrupted temporarily even during the repair because there is no repair work to abate a notice of violation that would go to her facility.

the upstairs are different. there definitely is repair work that they would need to move their washer and dryer prior to the permit holder being able to make the repairs, but we do strongly believe that after those repairs are finished, those laundry facilities should be put back in their position just like they have been from prior to ms. foster moving here into the premises, which was 1967. these laundry facilities of been there for at least 45 to 50 years. secondly, and i believe this is very important also, the appellants have written to the permit holder on four separate occasions stating that they are worried that he was going to used a permit to eliminate their laundry facilities. an agent of the permit holder confirmed that he was planning on doing that. this permit does not allow for that. this permit was simply a permit issued over the counter to abate

two notices of violation. if you look at the permit holders response, -- permit holder's response, he attaches a letter, which the appellants and did not attach, from june 3 in the permit holder response to this appeal, and this letter apparently indicates that the appellants will need to remove their laundry facilities from the deck, and they will not be able to put their laundry facilities back on the debt if, in fact, after the repairs are made, so based on this letter, based on the communications that the appellant foster had with the permit holder's agent, who assured appellant -- after the silence on this issue, it was very reasonable for the

appellants to believe that they needed to take this step and file this appeal in order to preserve their laundry facilities. very quickly, in addition to the significant hardship, that it would work on the two disabled and a senior tenants, their policies, including the encouragement of housing that is suited to the special needs of seniors and disabled tenants. also, there are statutory issues regarding the federal housing act and another. there is a number of compelling reasons to preserve the longstanding laundry facilities, and that is the limited issue before the board here. [bell] commissioner hwang: before you sit down, i think i read in your brief that the other units will have their laundry facilities

remaining intact? >> no. the point we try to make in the brief is that eight of the 12 units have functioning and laundry facilities at the premises. it is difficult to know exactly what permit holder is planning to do, because he has not ever really said one way or the other. however, there is no indication that he would preserve the other tenants' laundry facilities either, it his intention is to eliminate all of the laundry facilities. commissioner hwang: and all of the facilities are on their service decks? >> they are. and i do believe up the pictures he submitted does show a number of these washing machines, and there is water and electricity hookups, which were put in by the predecessor in interest, the former landlord, and not all of

the tenants to use those laundry hookups in order to have physical washing machines there, but there are laundry tubs and the ability for all 12 tenants to do so. only eight do it. commissioner hwang: got it. thank you. commissioner garcia: dated june 3, it says the personal property will no longer be allowed in the debt areas, so that could not include -- that might not have to do with washing machines. we do not know that yet. >> well, that letter was the impetus for ms. foster's file called to the permit holder, and for a little bit more background, for the permit holder not to say or ask," are you not going to eliminate our laundry facilities? she called and spoke to an

annabel, and ms. foster wanted to know, appellant foster wanted to know, what is going to happen to our margaret facilities in the interim? if you make these repairs, and in the interim, we move these, or you move them for us, which we think the june 3 letter was offered, will it be ok? the phone call was returned to ms. foster, and the woman told ms. foster, well, after we finish the repairs, there will not be any more laundry facilities there. i have spoken to mr. britton, and the deck will no longer have laundry facilities. that is consistent with the house rules that were promulgated. that is consistent. . cannot store any more of your personal property, and i think that he meant to include laundry machines, on the back decks anymore. the june 3 letter seems to indicate, although it is vague,

after repairs are made, there will no longer be any permission under the house rules to maintain the laundry facilities. commissioner garcia: if you go to, i guess it is called the red board ordinances, what do they say about the rearrangement between the tenants and landlords? does he have the right, particularly in the case of an individual that is not going to have any work done on her deck, porch, whatever you call it, is it within the purview, within the rights of the land war to just say, "you have to take everything off of that deck?" >> first of all, laundry facilities are and housing service, so if, in fact, hypothetically, if he did follow through with this construction and did permanently removed and

prohibit the tenants from than putting their laundry facilities back up there, the remedy would be than for the tenants to go to the rent board and ask for a reduction in rent that corresponds to the reduction in services, ied elimination of the laundry facility. the reason that this issue is properly in front of the border rather than a reactionary appeal in front of the rent board is that you cannot put a dollar amount on the impact that the elimination of the laundry facilities would have on these three tenants. i cannot speak for the other tenants there, but i can speak for my clients, and we have a severely disabled tenant who is incapable of going to a laundromat, we have a senior tennis -- commissioner garcia: i understand your point. you do not have to reiterate.

>> the rent board does create moderate facilities as a housing service. rather than taking that route, the appellants, independent of any legal representation, felt that bringing this before the board of and conditioning the permit, and i would like to repeat that the permit is a over-the-counter permit that only a late -- allows for the abatement. commissioner garcia: that is not in response to my question. perhaps other people will of questions that will allow you to continue. >> i am sorry. >> my name is john britton. i purchased this building in may with an existing notice of violation on it, and on june 2, i got a permit for making the repairs.

after meeting with the senior housing inspector, i met with him twice, the inspector who was taking on this was on vacation, but the inspector i met with tony to just go down and get the permits, and shortly thereafter, the tenants got an appeal to say that i was removing the dead and putting on a lesser deck. that is not accurate. i am just trying to make repairs. i am sitting here for two hours listening to issues of noncompliance, so i am trying to comply. if mr. mcfarlane has an issue with the way i operate the building, he should go to the facilities on van ness avenue, but he should not be here trying to hold up trying to get these repairs made. there are immediate life safety issues. there are is garbage all of the decks that is blocking the exits. -- all over the decks. it has to be corrected immediately. i do not think the building

department or the fire department or anybody would be happy with the condition of the decks. i just want to make repairs, and if he has a question with the way we operate, he can go to the rent board. commissioner garcia: or possibly, he can come here. >> it is up to you guys. i am just trying to make the repairs. commissioner garcia: will the state definitively that they will be able to have their laundry facilities? >> this is a very green city, very environmentally focused, and we have 12 people living there, and eight of them have their own laundry machines, and it would probably make sense to have a central laundry area as opposed to having all of these going the same time in a building that is 120 years old, and all of this extra weight on the decks, it just does not make

any sense. commissioner garcia: so are you offering to put in laundry facilities for all of the people prince >> all i am trying to do is make the repairs to the deck. there are homeless and the deck. i have not had a chance to assess this. the building has other repairs, but i am just trying to get through this notice of violation, and i do not want to sit here and make commitments as to what i can and cannot do until i can get into the building until a confined out what facilities are available, what space is available. commissioner garcia: how do you feel about allowing them to continue to have those moderate facilities after the repairs? >> there is issue of the decks being blocked. there is not adequate space. wendy's decks were built, there were no washing machines. there was a moderate trade that is still out there. a laundry was done by hand, and

those old concrete trace still exist on the building. that is what it was made for. over time, they have put these machines in, and they have all sent me letters stating that they own it. commissioner garcia: if it turns out to be co-compliant, would you let them do it? >> i do not begin makes sense to have 12 flandres systems for 12 and the jews. commissioner garcia: thank you. -- to have 12 laundry systems for 12 independent people. >> it is a typical building permit which we issued for less than 50% repair, stairs, decks, and i went there actually

yesterday to the building, and the deck, the stairs, the landings, they all need repairs. you can probably get away with less than 50%. there are areas that are definitely in need of immediate repair, so the work, it definitely needs done, and you probably have to move some stuff to get the work done, stuff being appliances, planter boxes, personal items, which is probably typical for a i am available for any questions. commissioner garcia: mr. duffy, having seen the decks and the appliances that are on them, from your opinion, even though it is pretty clear that the owner does not intend to allow that, would that be co- compliant, or would there be an issue with egress -- co-

compliant -- code-compliant. >> i talked to some and before coming year, and he said that you probably need 36 inches, and i did not have a tape measure with the, but i did notice that it was definitely less than that, but it was not part of the notice of violation, but he did say it probably could be and should be. pat commissioner garcia: thank you, sir. >> is there any public comment? seeing none, mr. mcfarlane, you have three minutes for rebuttal. >> thank you. inspector dufty did make one point that i was going to make. the notice of reference does not reference the washing machines at all.

if they would like to have department of building inspection do another inspection, maybe we end up here with a notice of violation that actually deals with the washing machines, but we do not have that issue in front of the board right now. instead, the issue we have right now is a notice of violation for repairs to the deck, and once again, it is very, very difficult for these tenants to end up in a scenario in which they are not in front of this board or in front of the rent board when they do not have an answer from their landlord about what he is intending to do. they have not got an answer. i personally have written a reasonable accommodation letter on behalf of sherida ireton and sheriann ireton over one month ago. he has never responded. these are separate issues but a

pattern of practice which has brought us here. once again, the narrow issue is that the opponents would like the board to preserve their longstanding laundry facilities. i understand this is not aesthetically pleasing to the permit holder. he probably would like to sell the property for a profit, and it does not look great. i also understand that for whatever reason the house will was no likelihood prohibit this and will likely be an ongoing issue, but the fact of the matter is that the laundry facilities have been there for over 50 years. these tenants have lived their respective weafer and 1967, 1973, and 1981. there has never been an issue with these laundry facilities, even when the notorious landlord -- this has only become an issue since the permit holder purchased the properties calm and it became an issue two days, well, one week