president garcia: i think you were being offered some drawing. >> i have my own that are marked up so i know what i will be looking at. so in 2000, there were a set of plans submitted for 2323. the project sponsor is a client of mine who sold it to their client. i have these plans. the work was done in 2003. their clients all the house, bought it lock, stock, and barrow, including the furniture. this is a set of plans that will take you up for the floors. here is the ground plan showing

both properties. here is the area in question that we are talking about. there is a sheet of the first floor that you just saw where we saw -- where you saw the impact of the window and the stair, the window in the mechanical room, and the door that goes out to our property. and the other door that commissioner fong referred to. -- fung referred to. this is level two. eventually, this window, which is in a stairwell, will not be impacted. everything in this direction will remain. we are not touching those windows. they may have some fire issues and we will have to talk about protection, but we do not need

to cover those windows. this is the third level. you can see that there is an office. there is a window here that opens into the entry area of the office and we are going to need to impact that window. there are two windows in the main area of the office. i have not been inside the property. i am accepting that the property is the way it is listed. in the main area, i assume there is a desk or a work area. we are not touching those windows. president garcia: nor will anyone know be affected to the left or right? >> that is correct. on this level, garrett, held me

a little bit here. those windows will be impacted? right. there were some windows in the plan in 2003 that did not get built and those windows are not there. in effect, there will be no impact on level four, meaning this window will say and that window will stay. i think that does it. frankly, we view what we are planning even in the future as somewhat minimal and something we could work with them on. commissioner hillis: what is the scope of this term it? is this it? >> the scope of the permit that is before you is just the fire wall that gets us started and sets the eastern most wall of the expansion that is going to come to be. commissioner hillis: why not submit the permit in its entirety?

why do it like this? >> to get started. commissioner fung: how does the 10 feet relate to your building in terms of the fire code? >> the answer is i do not know. i would have to sit down with jeff maddox and asked him to tell me like a 4-year-old. it is a fire code issue. i am not sure. >> mr. sanchez, mr. duffy, you are up. >> i thought there were going to do a duet. commissioner hillis: you never know. >> there we go. mr. boscovich, i do not know.

i will talk to him tomorrow. i let him away early. i was a little bit confused when i saw the brief in regards to the property line. there is a complaint that it complied with the dbi about 2323 hyde st. about these windows and the legality of them. i went to look at the complaint and tried to get myself appointed for today. there is something going on with regards to this easement and the area because the property line is not really shown on the plans. i believe that has gone through some sort of core process at this time. it is the first phase of the work. i do not know whether the

building code would require this wall in this location. because this is the first part of the permit. i do not see the rest of the permit. there is not enough information for me to say that. if anyone has any questions, -- president garcia: why was a permit issued for a wall? >> you can apply for a permit like that if you want to spread it out. if you want to build a wall, you can build a wall. it is up to your neighborhood if they do not like that. that is why we are here, i guess. they can do it like that if they want. it is unusual but there is nothing to stop them from doing it. i am concerned about the flue. on this permit, the existing flue is going to be relocated to an adjusted -- to an existing property by an adjacent property owner. the adjacent property owner

says, i will do it next year. where do we stand then that's how we work that out? that is an issue and it is something the building to arm its troubles with. it is a big flue. there are also a couple of outlets -- there are some sort of ants that were on that wall. there are some relocations on hyde st. that need to be considered before the wall is built. and i do not know if the with is required for the egress for the future. i cannot answer that question. commissioner fung: do you know why this wall is required for life safety? >> i do not know at this time. it could be, but that is not -- the future kermit is not a permit yet. so i am not too sure. i spoke to the engineer and he assured me that it was. i need to do more code research

on that. you could call a code section out to work for you in certain conditions and you can pull one out to make it easier. commissioner fung: i need to back off from that question because i read it as a fire wall but it just says fire-rated wall. >> the future exit system has not been permitted yet or applied for, so i am not sure. president garcia: you feel as though you might be looking at a spite wall. nothing made you feel as though you might be looking at a spike wall? >> i do not know. they explained to me that it was the way they wanted it to work. i think it is unfortunate that, with this building, it was all one building at one time. there is another building in the

back and it is just a mess up there. whenever you go up the alley, you to other properties. i think it is 1112 lombard. it has property windows the whole way around. there are a lot of issues. there is a fire escape going from 2323 hyde as well that encroaches on to 1100 lombard. the front easement crosses property lines. there are a lot of chris- crossing property lines. there are a lot of parts that support the upper section of the building. i do not know what to say. it is very messy and complicated when you go into the courtyard area. a judge will sort that out. those are my comments. commissioner fung: are there any

other bridge -- any other building permit applications? >> there was another before us with regard to some seismic work. that is going very well. the tenants complained a little bit, but it is moving forward. there is interior remodeling at 1100 lombard as well. >> do you have anything, mr. sanchez? >> just to be brief, most of these issues are building and fire code issues and not planning issues. this is the fifth permit that has been issued on the subject property in the last year. most of those relate to interior work. one was subject to an appeal that was a permit to remove the front stairs. both planning and building have been involved in that and have worked to ensure with the property owner that the stairs

were provided in the rear to provide access to the voting. there is also work on the garage level. in terms of the timing, i do not know what prompted this permit. as stated by the permit holder, the civil suit was filed on february 2 and this permit was filed on february 3 and about a week or two after that, the variance application was filed. the variants is still pending. i do not believe it has been scheduled. the earliest it could be heard is in april. that variants is to -- they wanted to remove the fire escape in front of the building, which would be an improvement. even though this is a historic resource, we would move the fire escape and provide the stairs. also, extending the stairs to the roof. i just wanted to provide the additional information.

commissioner fung: can you describe a little further what is in the various tax -- what is in the variance? >> i have not reviewed it. galvanized metal is required by the census go building and fire department in order to remove the existing fire escape system. president garcia: why does that require a variants? >> because the property encroach on the existing rear yard. there are no pending building permits at this time. this is the most recent building permit. this is the only pending case for entitlement that we have at this time. there would be another building permit that would be required in order to implement the variants

that was filed. commissioner fung: regarding the rating on this as a resource? >> nothing that would trigger historic preservation or commission review. not a landmark building. it is a resource. we have identified it as a resource. in terms of additional review, the hspc would not trigger that. >> is there any public comment? seeing none, we will move into a bottle. we will start with michelle. >> i just have a couple of quick things. i will read from the code about the eggs a garage. "exits shop pastor kitchens, storage rooms or spaces used for similar purposes, like a garage. " it is not that i have a problem

or do not think that some part of the fire wall is not necessary. if you think of the future permit, they are building this directly abutting 2323. i agree that a fire wall or two should be required. my question is the wall as part of this permit. it does not appear to ever be part of the future where the two buildings might kiss. this wall, as drawn, opens into a courtyard of approximately 10-foot with. it serves no purpose, even for their future expansion plans. as a person who tries to work this stuff out for everybody's benefit, i could come up with a scheme that says that that part of the walt is not necessary where the buildings actually

touch. >> when the variance gets granted and the unattractive fire exit is removed and the stairs are put in the back, you need to get to the backyard through the front yard and you need to do it through your property. you need a fire-rated wall. it is the wall we are building to protect that entry from the front yard to the room backyard. -- from the front yard to the rear yard. this drawing has been shown a couple of times, we have never seen it. i do not know where it came from. it does not appear to be accurate to me. but i withhold judgment because it is a piece of a drawing. it does not show the whole side. i do not think you can put

storage in a garage. i think that is what the code says. i think you can exit through the garage. i am certain that to solve the problem, we can get the equivalency and come out of what is a very ample and generous garage area, rather than going out to our property and leaving in that way. there was a neighborhood meeting and they were at that neighborhood meeting. the entire plan for the whole of the product was shown to them. you can see in our brief that are representative was there and signed as having been there and seen the whole project. that is what prompted their lawsuit. thank you. president garcia: this probably has no relevance at all, but why would -- it seems as though it has not been that long since this property went through a

property transfer. why would the property lines have not been straightened out at that time and settled at that time? >> it would make a lot easier for us if it had been straightened out. the project that was done in 2003 was done by an owner prior to these owners. we did not own 1100 lombard at the time. i really cannot answer that question. president garcia: it seems odd that a property could be transferred without having well- defined property lines. >> i agree. >> anything further from the department? >> in the 2010 san francisco building code, we have a local ordinance for going through a

garage area. exiting on 2323 hyde could apply for that. we do have something there that lets people get through garages for exiting in certain time -- in certain conditions. president garcia: would they need a door or would they be able to use the door as it currently functions? >> i think you need a man door and a designated path. and some painted markings in the garage to make sure you exit through that. i have not inspected one, but i have seen it used before. it is a case-by-case basis. i just thought i would point that out. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted.

commissioner hillis: this sounds to me like it is the tip of the iceberg. we have a fire wall caused by a ceqa appeal and this permit being appealed to us. as commissioner garcia said in the past, it is good for people to get together and figure out the more complicated issues. as this gets farther along, the host of issues -- i guess this is getting the ball rolling. i did not hear anything necessarily to make me inclined to overrule the permit. i do have some concern about the flue and putting some language in about it being accommodated. this picture, it shows the flue. this is the wall of the neighboring property or your wall?

so there are options to rid it is hard to understand where this is or what the options are. we should put in some accommodation for that flue. president garcia: i think it is already an encroachment, right? >> the flue is an encroachment but we will work with them to figure out a way to vent what needs to be vented. if that means moving our wall back 4 inches to accommodate a rectangular flue or something like that, we will do it. if you want to condition the permit accordingly, of course we will work with that. commissioner fung: the -- it is

like the saying, if somebody wants to build a -- i better not say that. the questions that have been brought up, if you look at that main door that is being covered, it appears to be a door that had been added at some point. one of the windows does not show much detail to it. and one of the windows, perhaps the one stop in the notch in the building, the -- i see nothing that has been brought forth is against this permit at this point. and i would rather not deal

with the flue. it is on somebody else's property. i think it is up to them to work it out. perhaps the final solution to this, again, probably not here. commissioner hurtado: i think there would agree with that. i do not see any reason to overturn this permit at all. president garcia: nor do i. but i do wish we had the entire scope of the product in front of us rather than this piece. i do not really think this is a spite wall but part of a future project. i guess it is more about that easement than it is about the wall. at any rate, i moved that we all hold the permit and deny the

appeal. based on the fact that this wall is code complianct and no evidence was presented to cause us to overturn the permit. >> we have a motion from the president to deny this appeal, of all the permit on the basis that it is code compliance and no evidence was presented to cause the board to overturn. on that motion -- commissioner fung: aye. commissioner hillis: aye. commissioner hurtado: aye. the vote is 4-0.

this permit is upheld on that basis. thank you. >> good morning, everybody. i am the manager -- we will kick it off first with a message from our cities librarian. the director of the san francisco library system. [applause]

>> thank you. this is fantastic. good morning to everybody. i am a little jealous. i said, this is not my house. it is your house. welcome to all of you. this is indeed your house. i am a little jealous because i did those of green t-shirts. -- dig those green t-shirt. we are proud to be part of youth advocacy day. that is where it begins. congratulations to each and every one of you for being here. i cannot say enough about our great librarians. we need your feedback.

today is going to be one of those great opportunities to tell us all about what you need and what makes this city a great. have a fantastic day. it is my pleasure to be hosting you. [applause] thank you. >> good morning, everyone. i am so happy to welcome you guys to the third annual youth advocacy day in san francisco. [applause] i know that we have lots of young people in the audience today. i will ask people to raise your hands and make some noise. right on. how about lincoln?

is mission in the house? yes! as i was walking over, i realized we missed the school. [applause] right on. i am so happy that you guys made it through the rain. you got here on time. so ready to inform all the public officials about what you think needs to happen in the city. a little bit about our department. dcyf funds a whole bunch of programs in the city. we believe that young people's voice is the most important to guide our program development and to lead or this city.

as you go through your programs today and learn all about the inner workings of the city and when your meeting with those public officials, make sure you explain to them that not only do you care about education, about transportation, about safety, and about jobs, but that you also have really great ideas to share with them. when you finish today, i expect you to come back with some great reports about all the things we will change to make your lives and the lives of your siblings and friends and families better. another thing i want to make sure you know, if you like what you were doing today, please connect with some of the young advisers and dcyf staff because we have a number of opportunities for young people

to share your voice. we have yet advocacy council -- youth advocacy counsel. are there youth warriors in the room? right on. yay! ok, i want to introduce today the most important person in the room today. are very -- our very youth from late mayor of san francisco -- youth-friendly mayor of san