commissioner fung: is there a motion? president garcia: we are waiting for you to make a motion, and then we will attack you. commissioner fung: we wind up looking at compromises. and i agree. i thought that some of the comments, perhaps -- given the approach, i would make the following motion -- to grant the appeal, but to uphold the permit, with the following conditions. that the grill be relocated to the center of the building at some point adjacent to the penthouse wall and that the north rail and the south real --

excuse me. let me restate that. that the north rail be moved 1.5 feet, and that the south will be moved 1.5 feet. >> just for the length of the rail fronting the light well? commissioner fung: that is correct. >> just to be clear, the grill you are moving -- what would that be? commissioner fung: that would be

the east wall of the penthouse. >> in the section between the door and the south? president garcia: that is assuming the grill gets plumbed. would we get any approval if it were -- commissioner fung: if it were portable, no permit is required. this way, right back -- this way, right? the west wall of the penthouse. >> i would be inclined to move the grill -- commissioner hillis: i would be inclined to

move the grill. there are big issues on the railing. >> kevin robinson, owner of 2756. commissioner hillis: if the railings were to move on the north side, and the grill where to relocate against the penthouse -- >> we would have no roof deck because we would have no fire egress. we have to keep a diagonal clearance between the board chairman and -- if we move the railing a foot, we cannot get off the roof deck. i can move it, but not even a.

-- a foot. commissioner hillis: can we stipulate the move it to the point where they lose the 36 inches of the dress? commissioner fung: i understand what she is saying. 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 inches. >> to the point where she -- commissioner fung: can maintain legal egress. >> and no more than 36 inches. president garcia: how much does that affect the vantage point that will protect the privacy of the neighbor? >> i think he is concerned about light. president garcia: that is the

light issue. >> i am not sure how much it is going to save. president garcia: i would have preferred studies showing the sun at various times of the day before doing that. commissioner fung: it is not going to do much at all to his light. that comes in from the western direction. president garcia: is that very burdensome? i am not sure how i am going to vote on this. >> i have to pull the railing in and maybe it is 6 inches. i do not know how much that helps the light come through. president garcia: thank you. >> nothing on the south rail? commissioner fung: 1.5. >> the motion is to grant this appeal, uphold the permit, with

the following conditions -- that the gas grill be relocated to the west wall of the penthouse, that the real to the north be reduced up to 1 foot 6 inches or less, up to the point where legal egress can be maintained, and that the south rail be moved the same 1 foot 6 inches. commissioner fung: for the portion that is adjacent to the light well. >> adjacent to both like wells? -- light wells? commissioner fung: yes. >> we need four votes for these conditions to stick. president garcia: before i will vote, if i may make a comment -- look how many people came here this evening because of this. if ever you are involved in some project again, invite the people

to your house so they can see if the closet describe is something else. have the neighbors up on the roof and find out what their concerns are. it seems these compromises we are getting ready to vote on could have been achieved by all sides working together and maybe becoming better neighbors and getting to know one another. having said that, obnoxiously, possibly, aye. commissioner hillis: aye. commissioner hurtado: aye. >> the vote is 4-0. the permit is up held with all those conditions. thank you. >> we will move on to the last item on our calendar, which is item 11. item 10 has been withdrawn. item 11 is a pill 12-010 -- is

appeal 12-010, protesting the issuance on february 3, 2012, to a permit to open a building. application 2012-3472. you have seven minutes. >> krista shaw, for appellants. i would like to give you some background very briefly on the structures at issue here. i am going to speak very briefly because i want to give most of our time to speak to some of the issues being created by the granting of a permit. the structures are planned at 2323 hyde and 1100 lombard. they were originally built as a single residents.

there were subdivided in the late 1930's, and since then have been occupied and operated separately. the permit at issue, i can show the overhead, would require closure and filling of this door and this window. this door is the only access to the exterior of this home from the permit's west side. it is a very large home, over 8500 square feet, and this is the only exit door from the interior of the home. by granting this fire will permit, you essentially are eliminating an emergency exit from this side of the house. the other door being shown is a mechanical service door. part of the reason we have a ceqa appeal on file is that the building permit for the fire well shows only this door and this window has been impacted on

the 2323-building, but the overall plan is filed with a very supplication at the planning department. it shows closure of all these other shaded windows. my understanding is that that was not part of the consideration when the environmental review was done for this permit. we are asking that you continue hearings to give the parties an opportunity to work out some alternatives. mr. maddux will speak to some technical options by which their project could be changed and our clients' needs could be met. >> i am geoff maddux, a fire protection engineer. i spend my five hours a day at dbi trying to find solutions to fire protection problems like this. i come to it with that in mind. on the face of it, this permit

will be very difficult to accomplish the changes that are "required" for 2323 hyde. removal of the flue -- that is mandatory for the water heater of the building. you cannot remove it. some of the windows that are shown as covered our windows to habitable spaces. -- are windows to habitable spaces. there is required light to those bases. removing those windows does not account for the fact that these are required for those purposes. i think a lot of the reason the plans show the reason to infilled these windows relates to the creation of a new spare serving the roof deck of 1100 --

stair serving the roof deck. this portion is the only portion that is within 10 feet of the 2323 building, and i think that is the portion causing the arctic. i am not sure why it could not be moved in line with the grade, which is more than 10 feet from the windows we are talking about. commissioner fung: can i interrupt you for a second? hold the time. all the drawings you are showing us -- where are they from? the variance application? >> yes. commissioner fung: please continue. >> the most important reason is very difficult to achieve what the permits says is that exit door. the 2323 building is over the size that requires two exits by about a factor of three, and has two doors. this is the only second exit.

to suggest that the fire protection of the neighboring building, because of a property line issue, is more important than a second exit from a home with bedrooms for adults and children does not make sense to me. i think the second exit is more important than protecting the neighbor from a fire. in fact, in 2001, dbi approved revisions to 2323 hyde and expressly stated -- i 10 number 3 is highlighted here. -- item number 3 is highlighted. it says if you update the windows, they have to be replaced. property line windows can remain as is if the work is not replaced. i think they are admitting that there is a basic problem with

buildings on property lines, but because these conditions existed previous to this permit, they are allowed to remain, unless they physically get covered by the neighboring property. when we build this new -- it covers not on thly the exit, but a number of these windows. i question why the wall needs to be there at all. one solution might be that this wall is not necessary for the portion of the building that faces the courtyard. admittedly, a new building may be constructed on a future permit over those windows. but i can see ways to make this work for both owners without necessarily closing all those openings. president garcia: are you done, before i ask my questions? why could a new means of exit

not be created, a new door cut out? the stated this is the west side of the building. >> it is. president garcia: why could they not find another perimeter wall where they could cut a door? >> that is possible, but the building is historic. all the changes would have to go through preservation review. the face of the building on the south is mostly garage space. it would be removing some of the spaces for an exit door. on the east face, toward hyde, that is quite a frontage. the rooms that could be there are bedrooms and such. you would not want a bedroom door to the outside. president garcia: he said the east side is a garage door. 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 takes the job. i am hoping to find out from the architect. president garcia: for the wall to be built, that would obviously cover the door you indicated at the window or ground floor level. but i am not clear on why you would be required to shut off windows that do not have a wall in front of them, even though they are lot line windows. which requirement would that be? >> i agree with you completely. i see no reason to close the windows above the height of that wall. i do not know why it dais -- why that is stipulated on the plans either. commissioner fung: i am sorry. go ahead.

you indicated there were 2 the vote openings, but when i look at the window,-- were two openings, but when i look at the window, i see there. >> i was not able to get copies of dbi's files. commissioner fung: i am talking about the brief. we do not have these drawings. >> the store is the exit door. this is a utility window. this is the mechanical room. commissioner fung: the floor plan shows -- the plan. it shows three -- >> i am not certain. there is a lot of confusion in this process because of the difference between what is shown in the plans for the variance

application and for the building permit. perhaps the permit holder's council can clarify what the confusion is on that. what we are told is that this door is a critical emergency exit, and this is a window. apologies for the confusion. commissioner hillis: do you have a ground floor plan of both or either of these buildings? it is hard to understand where these doors are. it could apply to the ground floor plan to see if there are garage door exits. >> i have the ground floor plan here. show it on the overhead. commissioner hillis: that is your client? >> 2323 hyde.

commissioner hillis: your client. >> this is the exit door in question that might be closed. these are the garages, these are the garages. it covers the entire front door of lombard. commissioner hillis: and how many is that? >> i believe there are three. seeing the spaces today, i would suggest that four could fit in there. whether they use it that way or not, i do not know. and the main entrance of the building is here. you come off of hyde, enter into a corridor, and there are a pair of stairs. one astaire comes out and discharges through the front door and the other discharges through the exit door. >> where does that or go to?

>> once you leave that door, you walk into the neighboring property. you walk under 1100 lombard to lombard st. commissioner hillis: you walk along the garage to a servants -- to a service entrance. >> there was construction today when we were there. but yes, it is adjacent to the garage but under the three units that are above it. >> thank you. good evening, president garcia and members of the board. i am jim ruben. this is a pretty straightforward and simple permit. let me show you.

in the ground level of the neighboring property, not the property we own, this area -- commissioner hillis: could you pull that a little so we? >> yes. this area is the area that they claim prescriptive right on. that is our property in. the lot line goes to hear. they filed a lawsuit on february 2 and have not pursued the lawsuit and had not saw any court jurisdiction and they are not going to win when they do that. the door that they are talking about goes into our property. and they are claiming that they go all the way out here. i am going to try to answer some of the questions that i heard posed. there are three openings that they claim in their brief. they are going to be covered, which is correct. there are 48 windows in total on

that property. some of them are fantastic windows on the north. the three openings that are going to be impacted our a window here, which is a stairwell window that heads from the living area, which starts one floor above this and comes down the stairway. this is the stair you would take to get to the garage when you want to get your car or go up to the living area and. this door, which we have already described, and this, which is a window in a mechanical room. i have a mechanical room in my house where the boiler is and it is an interior room. you turn on the light and nobody is ever in there. i think there was a claim that it was a habitable area. that is it. that is the impact on the windows. the door is in the garage. this entire frontage is open to

the street. you go out this way or you can come anywhere here. i find it hard to believe i am not a fire expert, but i find it hard to believe that you could not put a door somewhere along here. there is also an exit out of the rear of the house into the yard in the back. that is the full brunt of what it is we are trying to do. commissioner hillis: and there is building above the area outside of that door? when you go out that door -- >> there will be. the fire wall -- a fire wall he is not sure he wants us to build, it will be an expansion of the building coming in that direction. this is the first phase of the work we are going to be doing. commissioner hillis: what do

those lines represent in that area? not the lines you drew, but the lines that were already there. >> there is a building above that. this is our building and there is a passage under there. commissioner fung: can i interrupt you for a second? >> of course. commissioner fung: for your plans, there is another opening. >> where are we talking about? commissioner fung: if you go directly up from the right yellow mark, is that door getting covered? >> that door is getting covered. they have not complained about it. commissioner fung: so there are four openings. >> there are three that they have complained about, but that

is correct. commissioner hillis: where does that or go to? >> our property, the backyard of our property. commissioner fung: sorry to interrupt. >> is ok. i am not sure what else you need to know. it is a permit that has been issued, reviewed by planning and was signed off on by a bullet -- by building, fire. it is the first phase of a project that will expand the building at 1100 lombard street and we would like to get started. i was going to say something about the flute. -- the flue. it does need to be vented.

right now, it is a round flue. i will make the representation to you that there are many other ways to flue, to exhaust, that do not take the kind of dimension that the round flue does. we just got on the internet and took a look at some. we would be happy to work with them and figure out a way to get a flue that exhausts their needs for their boiler. president garcia: are there some future plans for your client that will put the windows that there are concerned about above where your walls will be built? will those be in danger where they have to be -- >> if you want to give me a >> if you want to give me a moment, i can show you what the