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 after he purchased the properties, and then the tenants spent the next two months trying to get information. all of the information they got was either "we will eliminate your laundry facilities but" or no response whatsoever. so in order to release provide some clarity about the construction that can take place pursuant to this, the appellants respectfully request that the board condition this to preserve the facilities. commissioner fung: counselor,

the clients pinscher for which you are making the ada case, " what for do they live? >> sherida, the most impacted lives on the first floor. commissioner fung: and is there a second ada? >> yes, sheriann. commissioner fung: and she lives on the second floor? >> yes. it was to preserve the existing moderate this in the days. commissioner garcia: in your opinion, if the egress was supposed to be a certain number of issues, -- inches, would the

situation be acceptable print >> i believe it would be. if i may. inspector duffy would know this better than i, but i think it is important that the most severely impacted appellant is on the bottom floor, and i do not believe that the violation dealt with the bottom floor small porches. i think that all of the violations -- commissioner garcia: i do not think you are supposed to be addressing him directly, and your answer does not go with any questions and anyone was asking. commissioner peterson: you are

not representing all 12 of them? >> no. >> that is not which true that i have not been communicating with them. all i am trying to do is get this notice of violation taken care of. i have no intent on selling the building for a profit, like he stated, and i do not know where he comes from with these accusations. needs a lot of work. the building was built in the 1800's. there is virtually no way to make this building ada compliant because you have to go underground and come up in the back for the bat exit, which is not adequate, and the front entrance has stairs, so there is issues there, you know. there is only so much i can do with a building that was built in 18 a.d., but right now, all i would like to do is make the

repairs. there are holes in the deck, as mr. dufty can tell you. there is a ton of personal property all over the decks. when the decks get wet, they have no way to drive because they are completely covered with items of personal property, and all i want to do is fix it. commissioner goh: i have a question. can you talk about a month rent facilities on the first floor unit and whether the denkinger or whenever they are sitting on is part of the nov? -- whether the deck or whenever they are sitting on is part of that? >> we are going to repair in the end, rather than the part of it covered the garbage and try to hide something from him. i have no idea.

commissioner goh: not part of the now. no -- v. -- not part of the nov. >> i do not know. the inspector did not approve the workmanship. commissioner goh: thank you. commissioner fung: you of other properties here, br mr.itton? -- here, mr. britton? >> that is not to be discussed here. >> anything else, mr.duffy -- anything else for mr. duffy? are you looking for the nov?

it would be in the pellets -- the appellants' breeds. commissioner goh: my question is whether the nov affects this? >> i do not see it noted, but it is typical but the contractor should check the whole deck for any signs and take care of it all at once. it should get a full inspection. commissioner goh: is that a deck? the ground floor? commissioner fung: it is only six or 10 inches above, but it is made out of wood. commissioner it -- commissioner goh: ok. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted.

commissioner goh: comments, commissioners? commissioner fung: i have comments both ways. on the one hand, there is dry rot, and it needs to be taken care of. on the other hand, the issue on the upper levels did look to be as it was impairing the entryway. however, i think mr. britton is an experienced property owner in san francisco, and i think he realized this could take him to a number of different venues,

and he should be looking for a matter to these solutions so he is not in court all of the time. i would assume that this building is going to require additional permits and needs to be upgraded, you know? commissioner garcia it -- garcia: i see a letter from june about a program that i thing started in world war ii, and there was such a severe shortage of people working in the united states because men were off at war, and i think it might have predated so many women becoming rosie rivers -- rosie rivetors. they set of this program, and in allowed mexican workers to come

into the united states to work legally, and loosely translated, the spanish word means strong arm, and that is what this letter feels like. you feel as though if you are going to be a member of the business community, a member of a community at all, there are certainly legal responsibilities, but there are responsibilities, one would hope, on a humanistic level, and the tone of this letter is not very user friendly. it is aggressive. it does not properly defined, i do not mean to use the word properly, it does not reasonably defined what someone's rights are and how they are to be treated when they have been in the building for a long time. certainly, they were there long before this building was purchased by mr. britton, and at the very least, one would have hoped that a letter would have

gone out but said "i am not want to continue to allow you to have washing machines on the deck, and here are the reasons. there is a potential for the washing machine to leak, and that would damage the wood and increased opportunity for what," something like that. there are probably ways to solve that water problem. i do not know what is within our power to do here, but i am willing to accede our power -- exceed up power to do what is humanistic. commissioner peterson: i keep struggling if there is a way at least to protect the laundry facility on the first floor. i do not think we need to

condition that for all 12 units, and there are some efficiencies in combining, maybe some safety concerns on some various other decks, but there is something about meeting on the first deck that is very compelling note. commissioner hwang: i particularly appreciate commissioner garcia's statements with the long-term tenants and with respect to access to facilities you have long been using and entitled to. with respect to the permit, which is before us, i do think it is within our jurisdiction to hear what the impact far