>> thank you for joining us. and thanks for this terrific space that you have in this exhibition space and thanks for helping san francisco stay safe. rivoli. >> clerk: welcome to the february 7, 2018 of the meeting of the san francisco board of appeals.

the presiding president this evening is frank fung. he is joined by commissioner swig and commissioner -- barry contreras sitting at the controls, he is the administrative assistant. i am cindy gold, the board's executive director. we expect cory teague to be here. he's the assistant zoning administrator, and senior building inspector joseph duffy will be here representing the department of beuilding inspection. the board's rules of presentation are as follows. appellants permit holder and respondents are each given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these

parties should make their statements within the three minute periods. members who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each and to rebuttal. we ask that you speak into the microphone. you are asked to submit speaker cards but you're not required to when you speak. the board comments and welcomes your feedback. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, the bored's hearing rules, please ask the staff before or after the meeting. or come to our office. this meeting is broadcast life on sfgovtr cable channel 78 and will be rebroadcast friday at 4:00 on channel 46. there are dvd's of this meeting available for purchase on

sfgovtv. please note that any member of the public may speak without taking the oath pursuant to their rights under the sunshine ordinance. if you wish to testify in these proceedings, and you wish to have the board take your statement as testimony weight, please stand as you're able and take the oath. okay. if yo thank you. so we have general public comment. this is for any member of the public to speak to the board on anything within the board's subject matter jurisdiction but is not on tonight's calendar. is there any public comment? please step forward. >> good evening. my name is jerry dradler.

1919 arabell kendall lives across from me and she acquired two lots and merged it into a double lot. there are three written references to the lot merger in the report that's on the slide. all sales of the merged lot after 1919 included a lot description for a single lot that is 50 feet wide. if the lots were never merged, there would be two separate lot descriptions. on january 7th, 2017, the chief city surveyor issued a certificate of compliance dividing the merges lots into two lots. 26 days later, on february 2nd, tim brown submitted their final certificates for certificate of compliance application, contending there

never has a formal merger of the two lots 97 years ago. a second odd thing happened in 2017. i filed a sunshine request at dpw for this project file on november 29th, and five days later, the developer's surveyor who prepared the coc application showed up to survey the merged lot, ten months after the coc was issued. i have filed sunshine requests with dpw asking for documentation for their decision to split the double lot. i have received 56 nonresponsive documents and dpw says there are no more documents. i tried to file a complaint with the board of appeals about the coc and was told my complaint was not within the jurisdiction of the board. i then tried to file a request for jurisdiction which was also denied. my appeal is within the jurisdiction of the board

because it falls under the general mission of the board and because the san francisco business and tax regulation provides for such an appeal. my neighbors and i have tried and been did he any idea tenie opportunity -- >> clerk: excuse me. our screen is flickering. >> oh, i'm sorry. >> okay. go ahead. >> my neighbors and i have been denied the opportunity to participate in the public dialogue of a normal application to divide an existing lot. the issue before the board is not about my neighborhood. this is not mr. brown's first violation. he is a serial violator. in 2017, he acquired a home by master architect richard neutra and totally demolished it without a permit. i shudder to think what he has planned for 2017. the issue before the board is

developer abuse and weak city enforcement. we all need to do our part to end the abuse. thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you. is there any other general public comment? seeing none, then, we'll move onto item 2, commissioner items and questions. anything, commissioners? >> no. >> and item three commissioners is your consideration of the minutes of the january 17, 2018 board meeting. >> in additions or corrections? if not. let me entertain a motion to accept. >> i am sorry. let me correct that to january 31st board meeting. >> they're all running together. >> motion. >> okay. we have a motion from commissioner honda, is there any public comment on the minutes? okay. seeing none on that motion, then -- [ roll call. ] >> thank you. that motion passes.

>> okay. item 4 is a closed session. this is to do with public employee appointment for the deputy director position at the board of appeals. the first part of this is to have the public take public comment on all matters pertaining to the closed session, so is there any public comment on item four? seeing none, then, commissioners, we would need to entertain a motion to decide whether or not to hold the closed session. >> move to enter closed session. >> thank you. we have a motion from the vice president to hold a closed session. on that motion -- from the president. >> yeah. [ roll call. ] >> so that motion passes. we will go into closed session, so we ask those in the room to

>> move to not disclose discussions held in the closed session. >> okay. thank you. on the president's motion to not disclose -- [ roll call. ] >> okay. thank you. that motion passes, and there will be no report on action taken in the closed session. president, did you want to take a short break or want to proceed? >> you need a break, commissioners? then let's move on. >> we're calling appeal number

17-189, the property's at 524 to 528 valencia street protesting the judgment given to nilesh patel, remodifications to rear firescape drop-down ladder, and we will start with the appellant. please step forward, you have seven minutes to present your case. >> my name is joe kenas. i'm a tenant at the crown hotel. the construction that alternated the fire escape without a building permit on the 12th of april 2017 was done just to remove the fire escape on the ground floor to favor the restaurant there.

the contention that i'm setting forward is that the california fire code from 2016, page 274 states exactly what is possible from the determination of a fire escape or a large capacity building, large occupancy. the crown has generally about 50 beds and about three or four of those rooms are usually double occupancy and in addition to that, there's also people that are staffed there without beds. there's night watch or desk clerks, so it's well over 50. the california fire code insists, on page 274, under the 1104.16.6, the determination must go to the ground in the form of a stairway or

counterbalance stairway, and the exception is for low occupancy buildings of ten or fewer occupants, in which case, you can have an approved drop ladder that works with a crank as has been put in now without any building permit at all back in april. i've not insisted that the only solution to this is to go back to the original form of a rigid staircase in an original position, but i wanted to give the owners of the building, the project sponsors a way to see that i was willing to compromise and give them the use of the back of the building as a back room storage area for their restaurant as they have done over the years, and they could still have a rigid staircase to the ground to follow the requirements of the california fire code as stated.

we have a lot of crank down drop ladders in town. in fact, the crown hotel has one now on each end, on the valencia street at the front of the building, and now one in the back. and these things usually are unused. the fire department tells me that they don't try to use them. if they go there with their ladders, they put their ladder up against the balcony on the far side of the building and extract them rather than fooling around with a crank and a flexible drop ladder, which they have no experience in operating. i'm asking you people to consider this as an easy vote. i ask that you consult with each other and try to be unanimous. i'll take your verdict either way, but it's a fire safety

issue. i am an amputee. there's some other people in the building with dependance upon using a walker when they're on their feet, or a walking cane, as i've brought, and we just need a stairway from the lower balcony of a fire escape down to the ground as required by california fire code 216. thank you. [ please stand by ]

terms of exit requirements. the restaurant in case of fire or emergency restaurant, that's a second occupancy and come out that door in the back, the rear door. and this drop-down ladder was on the door. previous to that, there was original stair to the north, to the south of the exit door. that was removed and i have a copy of something written by the housing inspector. it says -- the health inspector write a required structure at the rear of the building and this was because a door exiting

the restaurant swings into that pad and the pad is only like four feet from the property line to the back of the building. there's not a lot of room. the drop down ladder was in the wrong place but could be relocated, so i met with the fire department and they recommended to move the ladder, and i do it. so i do that, prepare the drawings and went through the process. and that's when mr. patel ordered the ladder to be built, the drop-down ladder and extension of the balcony. that's when we got the appeal. we have a condition where the restaurant has one door for exiting to a narrow space in

case of an emergency, there's a conflict there you have a ladder or stair placed in the way. that's why the fire panel recommended for the north put the ladder and that would be a good solution. thank you. >> are you finished? i have a question. is there a reason you did not submit a brief, sir? >> a brief? i was not aware that i was -- >> okay. did you have a permit to do the work? >> yes. >> okay. >> would you like to see a copy? >> if you could put it on the overhead, that would be great.

>> the application shows -- >> thank you. because there wasn't a brief, i didn't see it. thank you. i'm done. >> can you show us the elevation? i think the appellant had a copy of your drawing, showed the previous condition and drop-down. can we see that again? >> let me show it to you.

>> so the existing rigid is on the right, is that correct? >> the existing that was removed is the one here. a suggestion -- >> sorry, gary, could you back that out a little bit. our screen is flickering. >> go ahead. go ahead. >> mr. kenas drew this by hand to replace the ladder here. when this was removed, the existing, the drop-down ladder was folding exactly on top of the door and that caused a violation. when the violation was issued of course we needed to take care of it and we placed a new drop-down ladder here with an extension of

the balcony. the drop-down ladder will be here and the exit going in this direction through some neighbor's yard and easement to 16th street. so in essence, the door is here, plenty of people can come out of there in case of fire or emergency and out this way also. both spaces have stairs, the restaurant so they can come out the front and the back. but in the back we have narrow, very small space, only four feet. from the back of the building to the property in the back. >> thank you.

>> we'll hear from the department. >> joe duffy dbi. the building permit is complied of violation, 2012 permit, ab-19 modifications to rear fire escape, drop-down ladder. it was filed the 30th of october 2017 and issued 4th of december 2017 and reviewed by building and code enforcement and housing inspection, planning department, building department, plant check, fire department and

central department bureau. the ab-19 is in the the san francisco building code and it's a local eequivalency. it looks properly reviewed and code compliant at this point. i'm available for questions. >> the appellant stated according to the state law, a drop-down ladder of this type is in sufficient for the amount of people in the building. you just listed a litany of people who approved this drop-down ladder. what is legal and what is not legal? the appellant said this type of drop-down ladder is not legal because there are too many people that the building serves and then obviously you just gave a list of approvals, so --

those people obviously think it is legal. why is -- >> i think i can answer your question. one of the conditions is that the occupant load -- i'll read it for you. 1.3 -- there are so many conditions for local equivalency, it will take 10 minutes to read it out. 1.3, the total load above the first floor doesn't exceed 50. i haven't had a chance to see the plans. i saw the architect with a set. that is a good question for them and they should have provided those and it was a condition of approval. i'm assuming that everyone who reviewed this would have checked

for that. it's part of the conditions for approval. >> for me, this is the pivotal issue, how do we verify above the first floor there's an occupancy load of over 50 people in today's forum? >> it should be on the drawings. >> we should ask the question of -- >> i think the other side to your question is the state has a fire code but the city also issues whether it accepts the fire code or issue amendments to it. or in this case equivalencies. i thought drop-downs were not an accepted equivalency. >> yes, i see that.

but one thing during this job educates you on code sections, i was unaware of it as well. i know it's been back and forth but it's obviously back in there. it's part of the 19. >> the latest edition of ab-19. in san francisco we need the ab's and they're useful and the building and fire department sit down together and go over them and do come up with solutions for the zero lot line building, a lot of conditions in old existing buildings. i could look at the plans that the architect has and i did notice as well, there's literally dozens of complaints on this building like sometimes

there's 6-8 filed in a day. >> how long of a period? daily? >> on my phone they keep coming up. >> are they anonymous? >> probably residents i would imagine. mostly housing inspection services. >> so the other thing that strikes me as an issue is that you just said to ask about a calculation to load and then there's reality and the reality would be how many -- regardless of the architectural calculation, what is the reality of how many beds are in these rooms regardless of what the red

sheet says. this is about life and safety which for me is number one importance life and safety the there's nothing more important than saving a life or preventing the impairment of a life. for me i would have to be careful to understand that the number of beds in the building are not in conflict with a spreadsheet. >> there are two exits. when you have two exits, you split the load between two. >> president fong answered my question. it's set up in such a way that the load sets that up.

it's set up in a way that if there's overcrowding, there's ways for the city to enforce that via the building and fire department. they are strict about it in certain types of occupancies. if there are too many people in the building, that's a major problem. part of the conditions of approval, it does go to the drawings, was it addressed and if not, then we have an issue obviously. if it was, they have to comply with the occupant load on the plans. >> president fung: i think the operator should meet with us while you talk to the appellant.

>> microphone. >> for people who are amputees like he said he was, they're relying on a second exit, is that how it works? >> there are areas of refuge for that purpose. that's correct. now in older buildings, the new buildings today, highrises are better than the older buildings but that is something that should be -- not sure in the old code how it would work with the billing but an area of refuge is required through the code at the time and then they may not have to provide that. i'm not sure if it's an issue or not. i don't know what difference

that would have made from this alteration. i don't have enough information without the drawings. >> how much comfort should i get in that the fire department signed off? >> i would assume -- and i presume it was reviewed properly, ab-19, there's a lot of these in the building code property, we see them all the time. i always think they get extra scrutiny because they're slow to equivalency other than someone who comes in with a regular permit. there's a lot of things they have to meet on here. i would assume that fire department plan checkers are pretty thorough. i know a lot of people work up there and they are good people and approving them. the fire inspector would be involved in the signing off and building inspector.

you have two people and i think you're asking more about the approval than inspection at this point, but our inspection plan is set up in dbi, there are several staff that work at dbi on a couple of floors. >> thank you. >> good evening president fung, just briefly, this was reviewed by the planning department and approved on october 30, 2017. this is a five story building, entire lot caoverage, historic building, replacing the ladders to rear fire scape and minor interior work was able to be approved in a valid way. i'm available for questions you

may have. >> i have one, sir. we've heard there are multiple complaints through the building department. are there from planning? >> the only complaint that shows up in the system at this time is a complaint regarding a general advertising sign from several years ago. >> okay. thank you. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll have rebuttal, starting with mr. kenas. if you have anything to say you have three more minutes. >> the drop letter is something the fire department tells me is just a bottleneck. to take the smallest amount of space possible from the ground floor where the termination of the firescape is supposed to go with a stairway. if the owner of the property wants to use the space for the

restaurant on the ground floor, that's why the fireescape has been removed from the elevation, the ground floor existence of the firescape is gone. and the fire department doesn't encourage people to use the crank-down drop ladders, they're flexible and people with any kind of disability, they're using a walking cane or walker or something needs a stairway to get on and sit on if necessary and move down without standing. at least if they can stand the stairway would have two hand rails and ladders are just always nothing more than a bottleneck. ab-019 has that it's in compliance with state law and doesn't mean that the state law can be ignored. it's supposed to be followed by

the ab-019. just the state code, the state law. and rebuttal, mr. patel. >> in my opinion, the drop-down ladder serves a process, how

many times it's going to be used, it depends on what high emergency they have. at the same time -- a fixed ladder is asking to use it without permission, they use it for exiting or coming out of the balcony. in a way the place has open space. >> can i ask you a question? are you done? i'm sorry. so, in the spirit of safety and making people who have

disabilities or challenges, why not the alternative that mr. kenas presented on his unprofessional drawing because he's not a professional but nice drawing though, places the ladder in an alternative fashion, why not end the disagreement instead of doing a roll down ladder, do the type that mr. kenas asked for in the alternative position that is not blocking a door whatsoever. >> it's blocking the way of the people coming out of the door. there's a narrow space. >> can you pull his drawing up

again? >> face it like you're look at it. >> this is the rear of the building and the property line is there. the door is there, the exit from the restaurant. this is the exit way. the drop down -- the ladder that mr. kenas is suggesting would go right here in front. previously right here. it's blocking the way. that's why the fire department decided it was a good option. >> thank you.

>> mr. duffy, are you ready for rebuttal? >> so on the plan that i just viewed, i didn't see an occupant load for the upper floors, with that said, we're probably -- this is a problem we have when we don't get drawings before hearings and look at them and stuff like that. they should probably be maybe reviewed again, continued possibly. i go back and we can have the architect meet with dbi and fire department. there's an occupant load but for the restaurant and not the upper floors. if they're single occupant rooms, you know, obviously 50 then but you have to go by square footage as well. there's a calculation needed. there's a few floors above that, we can get that for you. it would be obviously, it's a

concern of the appellant and a concern of the boards and mine as well to be honest with you. >> so you want a continuous. >> yeah. >> president fung: can you -- i'm not sure if my memory serves me correct, but the counter balance type fire scape and rigid types, did the code change on that in terms of the slope? >> i can find that out as well. >> president fung: i'm trying to figure out all the constraints. this is a small area -- >> if we continue we'll get more information from the architect. >> president fung: how much time does the architect need? >> did you want to have cory

speak? >> president fung: i'm sorry did you have anything to say? >> i think he was done. >> president fung: february 21st or 28th would be the next possible to continue it to. mr. kenas, does that work for you? the 21st sir? >> i would like the 28th if you don't mind. if that's possible -- >> president fung: 28th? >> is that possible? >> a motion? >> a motion to continue on the basis of not being enough information at the time of the hearing to render a decision and that the permit holder failed to supply briefs that gave us information for us to come to a decision. and that during -- sorry.

>> president fung: we don't need the reason. >> the best thing to note is exactly what you want to have happen during this break. so -- >> we would like to see occupant load from the architect. >> so allow time for load occupancy to the building inspection and do you want plans to be submitted to the board, is that necessary at this point? >> i think i would like to see the plans of what actually they're planning to submit. >> sorry. it maybe better to show that the permanent plans are in compliance with all of the conditions. ab-19. the slopes on that, the occupant

load, to make sure. i can get this reviewed again by dbi and plan check fire department. >> motion made by senior -- thank you. >> so the motion is to give time to allow time for dbi to evaluate if the plans are in compliance with ab-19 and request that the permit holder provide the relevant plan documents to the board, is that right? okay. so the documents need to be provided, 11 copies to the board the thursday prior to the hearing and mr. kenas on the same day. we have that motion then. on that motion made by commissioner honda, president fung (voting) that motion passes. this matter is continued to february 28th.

>> president fung: can we take a five minute break? le >> welcome back to the february 7th, 2018, meeting board of appealing. the parties dealing with rivoli street, are they in the room? we're going to call this case out of order. this is item 7. it's 122 rivoli street to roya rassai of an alteration permit for complaint number 201716752.

mr. patterson please step forward. >> thank you. good evening president honda and commissioners -- >> president fung: president fung. >> excuse me, it changed. if i could have the overhead, please. commissioners this is the structure at issue in the appeal. it was installed and removed without permits. the two walls and roof were removed, the structure's footings are still there. the house itself is a historic structure. we're coming out of order because we are withdrawing this appeal. but i wanted to make a couple of things clear to explain why. and that is this dispute probably could have been avoided

entirely if the permit holders had spoken to us as neighbors about their daughter's needs and we only learned of the intruder that startled the daughter was because of the appeal. and the permit holders did hire lawyers to get a letter of determination to split shared backyard in half without talking to my clients. that's the subject of the second appeal you'll hear later this month. as for this appeal, dbi just informed us they're going to take care of the issue, getting the unpermitted footings, remaining elements removed and we appreciate that. based on that assurance, my clients are willing to withdraw the appeal and the permit holders are willing to meet and

resolve the bigger issues and we appreciate it and hope it bears fruit. we appreciate the time and consideration and i have withdraw form, happy to hand in. thank you very much. >> thank you. is there anything that the permit holder would like to say? >> thank you mr. patterson. >> they may do so. >> good evening president fung and members of the board. i'm here on behalf of the respondents and this is the first we have heard they are planning to withdraw the appeal. i think they have understood the client's needs and circumstances for a long time, to remove the thing they complained of. we're happy to hear they're withdrawing it. thank you. >> anything from the department on this? >> joe duffy dbi, i can confirm

i spoke to mr. patterson. i was at the spot today and there was a piece of concrete they wanted removed that i think was missed at the time of the inspection. we'll make sure it's taken out as well and i think it will satisfy the appellant according to mr. patterson. so we'll take care of that. thank you. >> any public comment on the item? seeing none, this matter is withdrawn. no further matter is needed by the board. >> we'll move on to item 6a and 6b. appeals both dealing with ellen tsang and edgar brincat versus the building planning inspection dealing with 2650-2652 hyde street to craig and marina

greenwood, remodel of upper unit to change to flat roof with deck above and third floor below roof new stair to roof remodelled interior stair. and we'll start with -- mr. bring brincat step forward please. president fung did you want to wait until she is back in the room. >> president fung: we can hear the first one. >> good evening president and commissioners. please excuse me, i am a

terrible public speaker. i'm not against the permit holder improving his property. i'm concerned that he doesn't respect the public's rights and safety by not building according to the code. i am a retired fire man. i have lived at north point for over six years. the plans are inaccurate and do not portray the true existing conditions and in code compliance. for example the grade line and plain and measurements are wrong. they claim to have a survey that claim supports the grade line but didn't include the survey in the response package and refuse to provide us with a copy. it begs the question, why hide an instrument that supports their position. he did not provide the survey because in his response brief because it probably doesn't exist or their measurements are wrong. we had an architect review the

plans and he found several items not code compliant. one was the elevations of the first floor above grade are wrong. his letter is exhibit h in my brief. we consulted with an engineer and his conclusion was the measurements of the elevations of the first floor above grade are wrong. we consulted with another engineer and his findings revealed several other issues with the plans. according to dbi this is a four story building. when you have a four story building you have to earthquake retrofit it. the respondent is claiming it's a three story building to get around it. in order to determine the first floor level is a story, the code says you measure from the finished floor surface above down to the finished ground level at the lowest .6 feet within the building.

when you use their measurement, their southwest corner, this corner right here, when you measure down from the finished floor above to the 86 mark, your tape measurer will be in mid air and at least 18 inches short from the finished ground level. the southwest corner should be 114 inches. if you do the same with the northwest corner, this corner over here, you will have the same results when you measure it from the finished floor above to their 104.64 inch mark. the tape measure will be in mid air but this will be 58 inches short from the finished ground level. this corner is 104.64 inch is incorrect. it should be around 162.64 inches. stairs and planters are not finished ground levels.

the rear measurements are all wrong also, the measurements should be taken at the lowest point within 6 feet from the building according to the code. their measurements are in compliance with the code -- not in compliance with the code. the permit holder provided you with a large brief which is focusing on attacking our character with unfounded accusations. his brief doesn't say the times he came at us yelling at us and trying to provoke us or when the contractor made false accusations that the please said are not believable. or when a board of appeals commissioner made a site visit and her findings proved their statements were false and they were working without a permit and moving five times the amount of soil they claimed. in the permit holders brief he states in a couple of places we

started receiving notices of violation for the work allegedly done without permits. when you receive a notice of violation it's a fact you're working without a permit. since purchasing the property in 2004, he received 27 complaints and 14 were notice of violation. the first was for work without a permit and after that six more notice of violations on these complaints for working without a permit. what's interesting, prior to the permit holder purchasing the priority, there was only one complaint against the property for like 90 years. the project exterior height exceeds the limit, two sets of railings and one set is at the building's edge that requires 5 feet from the edge of the building to protect the property and ensure privacy. he changes non accessible set

back areas to accessible placing planters in the area and blocking the natural light in violation of the railing requirements and violates our privacy. and if you look at his measurements here, when he measures down on this corner to this corner, the blue line is a slope and here's a real slope, of the street and sidewalk, it is way off compared to the sidewalk and the murmeasurement should be in this area. his slope is about eight inch difference in height. i respectfully ask you to please continue the hearing, do a site inspection to verify the site conditions and require the respondent to submit plans to ensure the project is code compliant. have him provide the survey he has supposedly taken. if you do the measurements

according to the code, the garage is the first floor. this shows the front of the property where he measured, they're all at the face of the building when they should be way out here, six feet away at the lowest point. here's the stairs and -- and the other one comes down in the planter box. they don't reach the ground surface. thank you. >> president fung: do we want to hear from both appellants at the same time? >> yes. we'll hear from miss tsang next.

>> good evening. i have lived for 28 years, 14 years before greenwood take the home. our property is the only rear property and located lower than his building and negatively impacted. greenwood has bought in san francisco [indiscernible] he has high professional who put their signature and stamps on the plans for him. city approve the plan. state board for engineer issue order against his engineer and attorney general office [indiscernible] exhibit a in my brief. he attack with defamatory remark but did not tell you what he and the neighbor have done, terrible

things against me. our letters say the project is not co-compliant. our engineer review the plan and state the project is not in compliance. the permit applicant didn't respond to dbi or architecture as a require. the items in the comments do not address -- in the plan. the basement was 12 feet current shows less than 12 feet but not justify how becomes a basement for the first floor. no plan for calculation to support the changes. the roof area intended not to be accessible to protect adjacent neighbors right for privacy. the requirement is the area would be accessible. it does not certify with the

code, the area should be accessible and maintenance free. greenwood has a long history of submitting inaccurate permitting plans. when he didn't have a garage he certified he has one. this is $275,000 big project not including the work he did not disclose, demolish the roof with construction 40 feet high. this roof in violation of planning code 134 that railing five feet from edge of building for privacy. they have the railing remain at the edge of the building and at the second of the railing parallel to the first one and violation for planning requirement. he he has three decks. the decks are directly