attempts to legalize the roof deck were not to be appealed, because as they say, they haven't said a word about that yet. but it is a permit which requires some public notification and a variance action, so if there are a memorandum to that effect as well as a resolution on the table to the d.r., we would have no issue separating a corrective action for the n.o.v. and moving forward as quickly as possible. >> because mr. boskovitch is right about the process but duly noted about your concerns. >> i suggested to planning we resolve it in that way. jeff horn went directly to scott sanchez and said would you like the removal of this walkway and the permit action to correct the n.o.v. separated from the base building permit. he said no, i don't want

another permit filed for this. i want to keep this as one ball of wax and move forward. >> okay, mr. jacobs. thank you for that. okay. mr. boskovitch? >> good afternoon, commissioners. >> you and i, we know the industry. i do actually -- >> i'm trying to help him out. >> would you be interested in -- would you be able to give him that kind of peace of mind that this process -- based on your testimony i can't see why you would not. >> i'm happy to sit with planning, continue for a month and sit with planning and see if there's something. i'm trying to help them out. the first time i've been thrown under the bus to say waive the

fine and help them resolve it, if they do it their way it will be a nightmare mess. i'm happy to work with planning, if they do it their way it will make building permit process two years from now a mess. i'm happy to sit with them in planning to see if there's a way to resolve this, give them access, not set them up. >> with all due respect, it's a straight ask. if you do agree to remove the deck, you do agree that you have no issue with the stairs to go up a temporary stairs. >> i have no problem with the stairs to go to the backyard. >> and planning seem to be okay with the new layout and you seem to be okay with the new layout. why would you not immediately kind of agree to that? >> i'm trying to help them out here. >> so i would -- is your testimony here saying you would agree to do that? >> yeah. let's get a permit for the rear stairs to get to the backyard.

there is an issue on the roof deck, i told my client leave it alone, we have left it alone for years. they bring it up, we left it alone. i don't want to go down any promises for the roof deck but i haven't filed a complaint. there's no record for it. i've left that alone. but if they want to get a permit for the stairs off the deck, i absolutely support it. i wouldn't have stood up here and suggested it. >> but it's the appeal part equation. >> i won't be involved with any appeal of the stairs to the backyard off that deck as an interim solution. >> through the chair -- >> good afternoon, president and commissioners. my name is elizabeth gordon, it's my husband and i who are the next door neighbors and the complainant in this process. i think a memorandum of understanding is a great idea.

if in fact some stairs could be worked out when that cat walk or bridge is removed, we would be comfortable if the stairs had been mutually agreed to, to agree not to appeal it, that wouldn't be a problem at all. what i am troubled by, they are now trying to throw in this issue with the back garage roof deck. and we haven't touched that. that's coming up before the planning commission and that's something they are proposing in their drawings just submitted may 10th. i don't want this hearing to be about the n.o.v. and that bridge and we advocate for a stand alone permit working with the stairs, not appealing the stairs that are worked out so that can be cleaned up. but then we want to move forward in the right way to have what needs to be said at all with respect to the roof deck.

to clarify too, what planning did say in september when they presented -- they presented two plans. one was moving the cat walk to the middle of the backyard. that was proposal a and there was a proposal b. let us keep the roof deck and build a new deck and what planning said you can't have both of them, you could have one of them. so this whole roof deck and the deck also off the back of the house is still very much up in the air and that really isn't the subject of the n.o.v. so i want to keep those demarcations clear and not have any confusion. >> [off mic] >> i'm very comfortable with that i would just like to make sure we are mutually agreeable that stairs coming down don't suddenly turn into another deck, if they are reasonable. they could be along the line of the stairs that existed in the plans in 1961. that's what happened. there was a permit with plan drawings that showed some stairs coming in.

>> build the '61 stairs. >> build the '61 stairs. that's what's amazing. i think the owner at the time went and got stairs to come out of the side of the house, down the back of the house, down to the backyard. and then they ended up instead moving those stairs over to the garage roof deck, building the garage roof deck. just build as it was proposed in '61. [buzzer] >> thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners. let's discuss what is before us. commissioner? >> look, i wouldn't mind if i could hear from mr. jacobs just to respond to mr. boskovitch. >> why don't we do rebuttal. >> does staff have rebuttal and then we will have appellant? staff?

>> yeah, we don't have any rebuttal on this. >> smart. >> thank you. >> i mean at this point we are talking about a bridge built in 1960. they are trying to do the right thing. if planning wants to do one whole permit, we are fine with it. we will always work with those notice of violations. >> have you had any communications with planning that is their preference? and that is what they are recommending. you confirmed the appellants statement. >> it was the best way to deal with this and i think a full stand alone permit will actually go back to planning again but if we have that same plan that shows to delete the walkway, our inspector will verify the condition and put notes on the case. >> thank you. >> appellant?

>> thanks for giving me the opportunity to speak. the other issue at stake is if we were to agree to only a stair to the rear yard, which is what was offered, the property owner would lose access to their roof deck, which is kind of the main feature of their home, which they use a lot and it's a condition they bought the home with, and was there for a very long time. we are looking back in time to what might have happened. what possibly didn't happen. and permits are lost. things happen. we encounter this all the time. that's not a basis to support

this, we don't want to create a situation we are dealing with this in two years as mr. boskovitch suggested. if we have the opportunity to move forward and go to planning commission and they support and uphold the design as they have suggested to us, they are interested in doing, we should be in commission and moving forward with building permits within the year and it should be something under construction next year. we don't want to create more permits and more process that could be subject to further appeal and further time and interruption of the project sponsor's life and that's really what's at stake here and i think building inspection just expressed that there is a confirmation of the process that we have worked out with planning and we would like to move forward with that if you agree. thank you. >> thank you.

nope. you don't have -- sorry. i think we have already had public comment on this. so at this point, i think this is really complicated by the fact of the age of the actual construction. i mean it is -- it brings up our ability to discuss what is the most prudent way to go forward, all things considered. i'm going to open it up to a little conversation about that. >> i'm less knowledgeable about the concerns that mr. boskovitch raises on behalf of the neighbors and where i would normally like to do everything to preempt further issues this

case really does seem very complicated. the people bought this property with an existing feature. they discovered it's not in compliance or not permitted. it sounds like they developed, with planning, a very thoughtful and reasonable approach. when i was hearing the neighbor discuss her concerns and stating, i would be willing to have '61 level staircase going down to access from the yard, as opposed to what i saw in the drawings of a staircase with small deck going into a garden and then reopening the whole issue from her comments, it sounded to me like they are holding that in abeyance, they want that to go through the

full process and the appellants' concerns this would be subject to all of the complications of all possible measures to possibly eliminate the use of the roof deck or staircase. so, hearing all of this, i would be tempted to go with mr. sanchez and say this is a comprehensive and reasonable plan to deal with all issues. my feelings are that not everything necessarily has to go back to what 1961 was. this is something that has been in use for the past owners, the

current owners and it would appear to me that the comprehensive package is the best way to move forward and. you know, two years, if i'm here, i may regret that because we may be hearing something again, but it does seem this is just an issue that things do change. removing this walkway, having a good access from the ground level of the home to the rear garden and a reasonable access to the roof garage deck appears good. so i would support planning's judgment, confirmed by our staff that this is a viable

course to move forward and get a good resolution to this project. >> so your motion would be? maybe -- or, in order to allow that to happen, we would actually uphold the appeal. or we would continue this. >> brad russi, city attorney's office. are you intending to hold it in abeyance for a period of time to allow the planning department to approve the entire site permit? >> but we could only do that for 90 days, right? >> you could do it up to 18 months before the board finds it's not a serious and imminent hazard. >> thank you. >> the code provides when you are modifying an order of abatement and the board finds

it's not a serious or imminent hazard, provides the work must begin within 60 days and be done in a reasonable amount of time, not to exceed 18 months. >> if i may, madam chair. >> please. >> i think both parties came here today intelligently trying to work this out. mr. boskovitch, i just think you put your best foot forward, you are correct this would be a simpler way to do it but to mr. jacob's point if they can't get that bullet proof memorandum i understand why they have to continue the way they are going. i just want to say that. but interesting hearing, thank you. but i'm very clear on it right now i think that's the best way forward. >> so, it sounds to me, at this point -- and i'm just going to paraphrase what people are thinking. that we would actually uphold

the order of abatement, hold an abeyance, that permits be issued within 60 days, the work completed within 18 months. is that my sense? basically because the current configuration of the raised walkway appears to be without permit and the process going forward in discussion with planning, building and the project sponsor and hopefully other affected folks will result in a process that resolves all issues. >> just a point of clarification. the 60 days -- i mean, obviously we are dealing with a planning issue here. >> the code provides the work begin within 60 days. >> we have a planning process to go through, right?

>> right. i was just telling you what the code says. >> that's interesting. we know it will take more than 60 days because planning won't be able to produce this within 60 days. >> sounds like they have already applied for the permit to resolve the situation. that's already been done. >> is there a mechanism in there, let's say, for example, i mean, let's say planning just don't get it done within 60 days. you know, they are busy, they are pretty backed up. what is the recourse for -- ? >> the recourse? >> i think the question is, define what work would begin. does that mean someone engaged in a permitting process or does that mean a hammer to nail? >> i don't think the code speaks to that question. i would ask how they normally would enforce this situation. [chuckles] the other issue.

if this is tied to a more major renovation and there's a cap of 18 months completion, i would ask the appellant if, given the scope of the total project, that this would be embedded is, is the 18 month window achievable? >> a couple of points. first, this is a site permit. there would need to be issue of construction addendum before construction could begin. i don't think it's possible for a permit to be issued within 60 days. i think that we would be lucky to have a planning commission hearing within 60 days. >> i would agree. >> then culminating in a planning approval, which would then possibly take another 3-4 months for d.b.i. approval of

the site permit and several more months for approval of the construction addendum. so i would think we are on a 6-8 month time line for hammer-to-nail to begin. and then given the scope of work of the project, we would be looking at probably a 16-month construction time line. so i think completion of this permit, if all goes well, is somewhere along the lines of 2-3 years. so i think a 60-day time line for construction to begin doesn't meet. >> i think that's a pretty long schedule. you have a lot of cushion there. i do concur with you on the planning approval. i think once you get the planning approval, i think the

process will move quite smoothly and fast if you are immediately applying for permits and submitting to d.b.i. but i'm just, i'm still not clear if we agree 60 days is not enough for the planning process. what is our mechanism to deal with that? >> is there any -- and this is to staff, not to you. >> thank you. >> to our attorney, is there any language we could put in there? this comes up quite frequently when we have these complicated cases resolved by the planning process. regardless, this violation stays in effect and is a valid violation or at least our read of it. right now it's complicated because it's an old structure. what options do we have for resolving the time frame issue on the front end of this? on the abeyance?

>> i can only tell you what the code provides and it says the work to repair such violations commence within 60 days. i'm assuming the department could interpret that to resolve the violation. >> the notice of violation was issued two years, four months ago. they applied for permits over four years ago. this has been going on for quite some time. >> so this is in process. >> this is a lot of process, yes. >> they are stuck in planning. >> through the chair, what makes this different is we have some memorandum of understanding from planning, they would work, this is how they see this process should go forward, so we are trying to accomplish their end game here, you know? >> well, what really makes this

case unique is it is tied to a half million dollar remodeling job. the plaintiff could have gone out two years ago and tried to resolve the notice of violation. and the notice of violation, like i say, was issued two years ago. there's reallying in wrong with it. we gave two years. director's hearing and here we are. it gets very complicated when you start talking about the larger project. but if you just focus on the deck, is it legal, or is it not legal and you need to fix it, remove it. >> which we've just had testimony on that and we've spoke clearly why they won't go that route, so no point hashing that out again. >> i'm just going to be talking here as an option, we could order -- we could do all of our upholding the order of abatement, holding abeyance for

18 months for work to begin and this will attach only to the portions that need to be removed to be compliant. i mean, effectively what will happen in 60 days is the order will be lodged. they can lift it at any point by resolving the violation. it's not like the end of the world to do this. >> i want to throw something out there to see what the commissioners feel. how would you feel about continuing this issue, or this matter for two months, get an update from the department on what the status is at planning, before we decide? >> i mean, it's been happening for a while anyway. we already have a commitment of a process. i don't see it would affect it one way or the other. >> to commissioner lee's point

we don't have an option here. we know this isn't going to be done within the 60 days, so why -- continuing, i don't know how both parties feel about that. in that two months we would come back with a clear definition when it will be accepted at planning, i guess, is that right? >> uh-huh. >> once it gets into planning, i feel -- >> are we, through our counsel, we could continue this for 60 days? there's no life/safety issues? >> it's up to the board to determine if there's a life safety issue but you could continue to that time. >> thank you. >> mr. jacobs? mr. boskovitch? >> we are okay with a continuance. i would maybe suggest if a longer continuance period could be requested such that we can

essentially have time to schedule a commission hearing. once this item is heard by commission we are going to have a much clearer path forward and we will be able to definitely commit to a time line, and i think based on the current commission schedule, i'm not positive that the commission hearing would occur and us have actually heard from the planning

commission whether the project is going to be modified. >> mr. boskovitch? >> i suggested already, a 30-day continuance so we could talk to planning to see if they could build temporary stairs off the deck and off the roof deck on the garage. i'm not aware of planning saying this has to be one project. and it will make it very problematic to make it one project with a n.o.v. with a half million dollars. i'm happy to talk with planning to see if they are okay with stairs off the deck so they can get in the backyard, come back in 30 days and tell you what planning really wants. is that okay? >> my only issue is by containing this as a single project, we're not opening the door to endless process. i understand that our interests align in providing access to the rear yard and access to the roof deck.

our interests definitely do not align in terms of providing additional process and additional appeal opportunity ad infinitum. >> thank you very much. commissioner? >> i think, to your suggestion, whatever time frame you think, commissioner walker, would be suitable. but i think you could figure out those details at the commission. but one thing that will come from us is a calendar date. when we get the calendar date we could put a time schedule on that. good luck and maybe you could work it out in between there. >> can i entertain a motion from a commissioner? regarding a continuance? >> would like to continue this matter for 60 days and ask staff to see if we can get an update from the planning commission on the appellant's hearing. >> great, thank you. >> there's a motion to continue this item for 60 days. is there a second? >> yes. >> we will do a roll call vote.

konstin lee mccarthy moss walker warshell motion carries unanimously. >> see you back here in 60 days. >> next item is item g, general public comment for items that are not on the abatement appeals board agenda. >> good morning, commission. my name is mark -- i'm appearing the second time in as many months. i would also like to make public comment about a matter that also co incidentally enough involves a deck. you might recognize me, i was

here last month, however the deck i will make comment about is not something constructed in the 60's and there's a new owner purchased and wasn't aware this was built without the benefit of permits. this is a deck that was constructed by the owners who were in possession now. it was done in 2007. it was done pursuant to a roofing permit. there was a violation that was issued back in 2014 and most importantly, this commission has already issued a notice of decision over a year and a half ago and the deck is still there and the owner is still using the deck, using an open flame on the deck, has a propane heater on the deck, and this is not something where it's an absolute necessity where someone needs to use a kitchen, or someone needs to use a bathroom. this is a luxury item that is continued to be used in direct violation of the notice of decision this commission entered a year and a half ago. since the time i spoke last,

the owner -- i forgot to mention the matter. this is case number 6824 and 6823 appeal case number 6824, 6823 and order of abatement 9323-a, 107847a. 1024, 1026 clayton street. since i spoke last month, i had asked this be referred to the city attorney's office for enforcement. in 2016, in november, the owner was given his six months to legalize the deck and submit all permits, that wasn't done and i presented that hadn't been done, looking at permit tracking and the investigation i had performed, that had not been done. since that time, i received paperwork from the owner of property and which he provided to me under oath, under the penalty of perjury, where i asked him to submit all

efforts, communications, documents, plans, everything he has done since january 2016 to legalize this deck. essentially, there is a big pile of, i think, mr. sweeney puts it perfectly, it seems every few months you contact someone different. there's just a lot of kicking the can down the street. nothing is getting done. most recently in april of 2017, which is just about the six-month period this was supposed to have been completed pursuant to this board's notice of decision, mary woods identified 19 problems with the plans. it was an attempt to correct that. in june 2017, the owner was told -- >> thank you. >> that's it? >> that's it. >> all right. thank you. >> three minutes. appreciate it. i think we will look into it.

>> item h. adjournment -- >> mr. sweeney. >> we can't talk on public comment. >> we will bring this up at the next meeting. >> at the next abatement appeals board meeting? >> yes. >> item h, adjournment. >> since it's a previous case and we had a question on it, i would like to have a staff response at the next abatement appeals. >> okay. >> item h, adjournment. is there a motion to adjourn? >> yes. >> so moved. >> is there a second? >> second. >> okay. are all in favor to adjourn? >> aye. >> we will now be adjourned 10:37 p.m., we will take a 10-minute recess and reconvene as the building inspection commission.

[ 10-minute recess ] >> good morning. today is wednesday, june 20, 2018. this is the regular meeting of the building inspection commission. i would like to remind everyone to please turnoff all electronic devices. first item on the agenda is roll call. [roll call] >> clerk: we have a quorum. next item is item 2, president's announcements. >> good morning, everyone. welcome to june 20, 2018 meeting. once again, if i mispronounce any names, please give me in

advance. a congratulations to director hui, d.b.i. staff and city agency partners from planning, small business fire office and resilience and capital office in addition to the department of emergency management on a job well done last wednesday, june 13, 2018 at our annual earthquake safety fair. an incredible over 700 people attended the event with over 300 people attending the four workshops offered up with additional dwelling unit workshops reaching out to over 100 people. others attended hands on emergency training sessions offered by our community partners, community youth partners, and self-help for the elderly. congratulations to all to make this annual event another great ses. i a -- success. i applaud everyone on the staff who put that together. it was a lot of work. so wednesday again, thank you

on behalf of the commission. i want also to recognize d.b.i. staff members kirk means and rosemary busque for the steadfast commitment to work with the building inspection commission over the last many years. kirk has been instrumental in the technical service division in assisting those with code cycle updates, working with code advisory committees and its various subcommittees, and ultimately helping us understand the important legislative items that have come before this commission over the years. as our chief housing inspector, rosemary has helped this commission understand code related housing ordinances and helps us understand how we can address the legislative challenges that have come our way. i'd like to extend a sincere thank you and a job well done for all these years to both of

you, kirk and rosemary, who will be retiring soon, and i'm hoping that we will see you before you retire, is that correct? this is the information i've been given. i hope you are retiring. >> it's still in progress. >> it's still in progress, okay, but i hope i didn't catch you off guard there, but i was just told that. also, thank you to director hui and deputy director sweeney, who along with the fire department staffers who assisted with the 575 columbus s.r.o. fire recovery that happened lately. the board of supervisors thank them all for figuring out what needed to be done to get things resolved. almost there. thank you to carrie pay of plan review services who received a letter from a customer for providing excellent customer service regarding a parallel site permit submittal process for the mayor's directive for

affordable housing process. also thank you to derk chung from the records management division for providing extraordinary service for to a couple who needed records for their historic preservation review. a letter of thank you was received by dick andrizzi for the office of small business for accompany supervisor farrell on -- supervisor fewer on a recent accessible business entry march and walk in the district. supervisor fewer thanked them for their job and increasing business and property owner awareness on the a.b.e. program. a big thank you to those staffers who received a letter of commendation from supervisor stefani for going above and beyond to help with complicated or long-term code advisory at

its various subcommittees and ultimately helping to understand -- sorry. district two issues. let me start that against. letter of commendation from supervisor stefani to help with complicated and long-term district two issues. the supervisor said it was very important to treat the team with humor and wit. madam secretary, that concludes my president's announcements. >> clerk: thank you. is there any public comment on the president's announcements? okay. seeing none, item three, general public comment. the b.i.c. will take public comment on matters within the commission's just diction that are not part of this agenda. >> good morning. my name is jerry dradler. there were positive moments in

the june 16, 2018 b.i.c. meeting where we discussed unpermitted demolition. i would like to commend the d.b.i. and b.i.c. members. i was encouraged to learn that d.b.i. staff are proposing prepermit items section for nonover the counter building permits. now for the not-so-good moments. the contractor applied for and d.b.i. issued a demolition permit for 655 alvarado. the permit was issued after the house was removed. there's no question that there was none permitted demolition, and d.b.i. did not issue an m.o.v. for the unpermitted demolition. in the b.i.c. meeting, d.b.i. employees and the project architect and contractor engaged in a detailed justification of why the building was demolished. however, all the parties sidestepped why building code

section 103(a) was not enforced. discussing justifications for building code violations without discussing polish happens much too often in b.i.c. meeting. no b.i.c. member asked the contractor or the architect why they did not file for demolition permits before removing the house or asked d.b.i. employees why they did not issue an m.o.v. for demolition without a demolition permit. i find this incredibly disappointing. in the meeting i passed out copies of two whistle blower complaints i filed with the city's auditor. the home at 5999 hopkins avenue. i am unable to reconcile the city controller's action with the b.i.c.'s inaction regarding

49 hopkins avenue. thank you. >> clerk: any additional public comment? seeing none, item four, commissioner's questions and matters, 4(a), inquiries to staff. at this time, commissioners may make inquiries to staff which are of interest to the commission. >> seeing none. >> clerk: 4(b), future meetings and agendas. at this time, commission may take action to set the date of a special meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of a future meeting of the building inspection. >> okay. seeing none. >> clerk: okay. our next regularly scheduled meeting is on july 18.

is there any public comment on items 4(a) and (b)? seeing none, we'll go to item five, discussion on the california state fire marshal interpretation regarding high-rise measurement when the roof is occupied. >> good morning. kirk means, d.b.i. technical services. i was told that i'm presenting this. i just -- about two or three minutes ago, so i don't have a presentation ready, but i have gone through all the paperwork that is under this agenda item, and i can add commentary a little bit, and that might help out or get the discussions going. and i have been to the code hearings that are discussing

things in the future, and i can tell you what happened in those regarding these items, as well. basically, it's defining what is a high-rise, and if you defined it as a high-rise, you have all kinds of extra code provisions that you have to provide. if it's not a high-rise, fire department can basically side it with ladders and hoses and all that stuff. if it's a high-rise, they've got to fight it by going up the stairs. there's an interpretation that we've been going by from the uniform building code in 1997 that's included in part of your package, but it's section 403.1 says, question is, is an occupied roof used as a tennis court or swimming pool or sun deck considered to be a floor

use for human occupancy for the purposes of requiring compliance with section 403.1, which is high-rise requirement. the answer is no, an occupied roof is not considered a floor use for human occupancy because the intent was to address the uses only on covered and enclosed floors fwhere smoke ad fumes would be confined therein. this would tend to block exiting and rescue and could also contaminate the exit system. since the roof is open to the sky, the possibility of these things happening is remote. so when they combined all the model codes, there was three around the united states. they combined them all. they took the least restrictive provision and made that into the international building code, which we use today. and changes to that are made

based on studies. they're not arbitrary anymore, made by industry coming and saying i want to sell my fire valve and stuff like that so put it in the code. so things -- in watching the code hearings, they're just presenting studies, and that's the only way they really overturn the code items that are already in existence. needless to say, it causes a big problem if you change your mind in the middle of things, especially if there's not a demonstrated reason for it. you've got people designing one way, and if it was a good idea that way, why change it to another way that's contradictory to the first way? so case in point, this is a problem because now it's interpreted differently. state fire marshal has come up

with a statement or an interpretation that basically says the opposite, and it's in part of your package there. it says -- by the way, anyone can write the state fire marshal and ask them to clarify one of their -- one of the code provisions and they'll come up with an interpretation, and this one of them requested by jim allen of the san bruno fire department. it says, the california building code definition of a high-rise structure include an occupied roof of a building as the top measuring point for the criteria high-rise structure? every building of any type of construction having floors used for human occupancy located more than 75 feet above the lowest level having building access for consistency enforcement of state building standards regulation by the authority having jurisdiction offer information of measurement to the highest occupied floor versus occupied roof will clarify

interpretation and intent of the high-rise definition. the answer from the state fire marshal is yes, an occupied roof is considered an occupied floor. that's directly opposite to what they just said, that was the previous interpretation. the -- going forward, the hearings that i came back from, they're dealing with a 2021 international building code, and they've -- they've expanded this issue to not only high-rises but we count occupied roofs on low-rises, and what ramifications does that have, and there are ramifications to sprinkler systems and fire alarms.

it's the first triem code hearings that i've gone to that, they've looked at roof decks. they're not common in the united states, but they're low on the priority except for california or san francisco. we don't have the space for common areas. planning department requires the common areas, so a lot of times, the only place to put them is on roofs, so now, we have occupied roofs. where else? the commentary for the building code, which we use a lot to try to decipher meetings behind this stuff. in 2012, also part of your package there -- let me find it. the commentary for 2012 for permits quite sometime ago under high-rise buildings says

that, first of all, the code provision is that -- or the definition of a high-rise building located more than 75 feet above the lowest level of vehicle access, but determining what qualifies as a high-rise building is a fairly unique measurement of height and is not based on the definition of building height. the critical measurement is from the lowest ground location where a fire department will be able to set its firefighting equipment to the floor -- floor level of occupied floors, including any occupied roof. they included it back then as shown in a figure, and then, it has the figure below and in your handout. well, in the new commentary, it was probably part of the code hearings that the mayor may not have heard, but they've taken the word "including occupied

roof" out of the -- out of that commentary for whatever reason, so now, it says pretty much the same wording, determining what qualifies as a high-rise building is a fairly unique measurement of height and is not based on the definition of building height. the actual definition of measurement is from the lowest ground location where the fire department will be able to set its firefighting equipment to the floor level of occupied floors as shown in the figure. so they've specifically taken that out. and again, they don't take things out just for no reason. even -- even in the commentary, each word is important. so there had to have been some discussions on if we want to include this occupied roof or not. so kind of the net result of all this is we have differing -- differing opinions -- i think the -- the fire department has done a great job in trying to resolve

previous permits up to this point. they want to handle them the way we have been handling them according to the old interpretations we have been using, and new permits coming in, they want to handle perthe new state fire marshal interpretation, and it'll cause a few issues, but that's the law of the land. but that doesn't mean they've made those corrections physically in the building code yet. they're just interpretations at this point, which leaves building department interpreting them one way, fire department interpreting it another way, and that's never good. so we -- somehow, we want to get on the same common ground going forward. >> so just -- sorry kirk, just to -- are you finished with your presentation? >> yes. >> yes. what is the date going forward -- what's the -- >> april 4, i think. >> april 4. so if i submit a project after april 4, and it's a low-rise,

for example, that has a roof deck on it -- >> currently, the building department would probably say that it's not a high-rise, and it would get to the fire department -- and for our consideration, it is a high-rise. >> okay. thank you. >> and the date is april 4, 2018. so they've agreed to go by any preapps that were in the past, that the agreement were made, that everyone is on board with honoring them. >> i know this was the old word, the outreach that was done with regard to the industry or anybody. >> for the fire marshal interpretation? >> the architect association? how did they know. >> well, they'd request an interpretation from the san bruno building official or whoever he was directly to the state fire marshal, and then, those interpretations are published on their website, and of course, the fire department

here complies with what the state fire marshal has his interpretation of what is meant by the code. >> weif i'm in planning right now, and i've got a roof deck, and it is he aa low-rise, and i got it approved two weeks ago, and i spent the last two years getting that approved, i don't have that now. >> two years spent going to the planning department two years ago, if you had a planning permit two years ago, you're still in good shape. >> if i'm in planning right now, i'm notifying everybody. >> if you got it after april 4, and you went to the building department for a permit, is that point, there's an issue. >> just as a procedure, is this a problem? nobody's known about this other than a project sponsor -- one project sponsor called me all

confused and said, you know, just gotta profession approval looking at their drawings, and architect didn't know anything about it. d.b.i. were fine with it, but fire was saying different. >> we're not often in disagreement. fire department has different vantage point of construction. they have to fight fires. theirs usually takes precedent over ours, but we have our vantage point, too. we try to go by the code, and the discussions that have been made to develop that code. so like i said, that interpretation will probably turn into code eventually, and then, it won't be a problem for us, all those codes. in this interim time, it's an interpretation, and so it's our responsibility to interpret the

code for us, and the -- interpret the code for them? >> in your 30 years of experience in dealing with this, how long does it take before we come to code? >> well, like i said, those -- that interpretation, i would think would be incorporated in this upcoming code cycle, especially if someone from san francisco had an issue that needs to be addressed. >> okay. >> california was -- would have discussions on it, and then, they would make a decision one way or another, and i think pretty much the fire marshal would win unless there was overwhelming response in the other direction from the public, builders and whatnot that had a huge impact unnecessarily. >> commissioner warshell? >> i agree with you that, you know, what i see constantly is to set aside the outdoor space.

roof decks are more and more in demand to be in compliance. and i'm just wondering if the recent focus on the affordable housing density bonus site program is forcing more and more buildings right out to the cusp of the 75-foot level, that this is -- you know, we almost have policies somewhat at odds with each other or interacting, and we may or may not be talking to each other about we have this desirable goal, but we have this unfavorable outcome. is this density height bonus part of the discussion that is making this more germane at the moment? [please stand by for captioner switch]

would have to change from wood construction to concrete. >> but have you heard anything to the effect of the density program where they are really getting two extra stories? which really does put this much more on the cusp sort of thing, as part of this discussion or not? >> i don't know, specifically, i don't. >> okay, thank you. >> okay, kirk, thank you for that. stay close. so the fire came on short notice, i appreciate it and will be cognizant of their time. so libby, if you will come up. the mayor's office of housing is here too, we will slot you in next. thank you for putting this on

so quickly. i came to you last week. it's something we would like to jump on right now and get a good understanding, so i would be interested in hearing your interpretation. >> good morning, commissioners, my name is lydia and i'm public relations for the fire department. we were hoping the fire marshal would be able to make it but he had a scheduling conflict. i have captain balmy here. i first found out this from commissioner mccarthy and i called the fire marshal and his response it's the interpretation of the state fire marshal, which we, on the local level have to follow. but i do think there was some sort of communication break down somewhere. we have to find out why the state fire marshal has changed the interpretation and have that discussion as it relates to buildings in san francisco.

and the fire department here could start those discussions. and i'm happy to reach out to people on the state level and try to begin that discussion in the near future. the last thing we want is to prohibit people from being able to build much-needed housing in this industry. so i would be committed to pulling a meeting together asap to try to figure this out. we are working with d.b.i. on many, many policy issues and i would be happy to take the lead on that and take any questions you may have. and if it's technical i have to kick it over to captain balmy, because i don't have a badge. [chuckles] >> if we could hear from the captain, that would be great. stay close. we may have more questions. thanks. >> good morning, commissioners.