according to data s.f. the city and county recognition of seismic hazards. i'm concerned about having a four-story building immediately behind us. the lots are very small, which you know as well because the streets become more narrow as they get closer to the corner. which means all of the backyard, limited as it is, will be covered by the shadow of this building. we wanted to say we were not aware of it until the postcard. i am concerned about it because of the zoning. the seismic hazard and concerned about the height. thank you. >> commissioner honda: i have a question. are you a renter or do you own? and you bought the property under the area of disclosure, did indicate there was any future developments? >> indicated there was a plan, but we had been told it would be in existence for several years and probably had expired. that is with the realtors told us. our neighbors, to our immediate side, had been there for several years and they were not aware of it. >> commissioner honda: but it did indicate there is potential

development? >> yes. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my husband had submitted. >> commissioner honda: i'm sorry. can you speak closer into the mic? >> my name is yvette's. my husband submitted the letter that i will briefly read to you for at the record. dear board of appeals, we recently received a postcard that was mentioned before regarding the appeal of the building permit at 128 elsie located on the hillside immediately above and a couple of lots to the south of our single-family home that we own. we generally support and felt tight development as it is most sustainable land use policy in this age of environmental, stress and climate change. however, any multistory in this case, it is apparently a four-story building that i just read about, and has the potential to impact every

recently purchased and installed rooftops and our solar panels. at our home on winfield street. this was installed by the way in april of 2017. california plaza civil code ensures that neighbors may voluntarily sign silver easements to ensure that proper sunlight is available to those who operate solar energy systems. we would support the permit process for development if an easement was granted to ensure continued access to sunlight for our solar system as well as any other neighbors in the same situation, which relies on a clear line to the sun in the winter months when it lies to the south of our home. we hope you and the applicants of this building permits will consider our request to grant an easement to ensure our long-term commitment to renewable power in san francisco is not compromised by this project. we would appreciate that the planning commission on the board of appeals would take that into consideration. >> president fung: thank you.

>> commissioner honda: i have a question. how long have you been on winfield? >> since 2,000 at eight. >> commissioner honda: were you aware of the development? did they send you plans? there was a 311 notification at that time? >> we were just aware of this issue when the postcard mystery dish received. a couple of weeks ago. i don't recall that we received anything like that. >> commissioner honda: when they initially sent out plans you never received them? >> when would that have been sent out? >> commissioner honda: went in 2011, i believe. >> i would need to, on my husband. what is the reason for the question. >> commissioner honda: when someone was doing -- did she receive plans. and she asked me, whether relevance was. when they scent 311, it would indicate there was a four-story structure being potentially built there. >> then we proceeded last year that would stall with the goal is of the has established in terms of encouraging renewable energy.

i would say that would not have conflicted with any previous knowledge. this is something that the city encourages and something that is very important. >> commissioner honda: ok. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. 's or any other public comment on this matter? we will move on to rebuttal. we will hear from the appellants. >> i will just take a quick moment to speak about the variance and what we are actually trying to do with the variance and how it affects or doesn't really affect most people. this is an elevation of the street that the shaded buildings are the adjacent properties. 122 elsie is the two story box like structure cited towards elsie street. 132 elsie is a smaller cottage that is below the grade and cited towards the rear of the

property. going to the site plan, that want to adjacent were shaded in blue. my project footprint is in the grey. had we not applied for variance, the setbacks are superimposed in red. the idea behind the variance is working with this neighbor and taking this portion of the property, sliding it towards the front to match theirs, and at the same time, in similar leap towards this cottage, taken that piece and sliding it back. doing a shift to better meld with the two projects. thought for the person in the back, they did get, or i was asked by the previous owner to send a long electronic copy so they could included in disclosures. also i just want to point out that the building is only going 14 inches further than what would have been allowed without the variance. it is very, very minor. it is only on the first floor.

i don't know if you even see it over the fence. as far as a shadow on the neighbor's house, i can't imagine that we cast a shadow that far. i don't know for shore. this is the first time i have heard about it. if you have any questions about the variance, i can go further. >> the bottom line for s. is the restarting the process, you know, it would only delay the construction. and from any one perspective, it would be against a city policies about building more housing. i think there's been a lot of initiatives lately in planning and building to expedite housing projects and sending this back to the beginning of a process will result in delay. truly, without any true benefit since a variance itself as something that was creating in order to accommodate the neighbor's properties to begin with. what we are asking is a fairness

as you decide this case. i don't think there requiring the commencement of the process again will benefit anybody. and given that there is no code requirement for that three year performance condition, i do think that they have the power to extend these deadlines. there has been president to extend it both by the form at the ca and the current zoning administrator. we are asking you to please uphold the variance decision. thank you so much. >> i have a question. are you the current owner, or the previous owner? >> we are the previous owner. we are representing the prior owner and the architect of the project. they went -- they sold it to the current developer. >> the current person is not here? >> yes, he is. he is available in the back for any questions you might have.

>> president fung: on what basis are you asking this board to reverse the suspension? >> a couple of different things. number 1, the zoning administrator does have the power to extend those variance decisions. and the fact there is also precedent that has been done. i recognized that the typical scenario is an extension where something happened in a city process that cause delays. there have been other occasions too. there is another exhibit in my brief -- >> president fung: let me rephrase the question. are you asking us to find that they dared? or are you looking at this as if it is a noble -- >> we are asking for off up the suspension to be lifted so that the variance will be held and it will be valid so the project can proceed. the concern here is about the construction management, the communication with the neighbors. >> president fung: thank you. >> thank you.

>> thank you. mr jake? nothing further. mr duffy? nothing further. >> president fung: mr teague -- spee with -- >> commissioner honda: mr teague? >> president fung: didn't we hear this case? >> i apologize for for the ladybug delay there. i am not aware that this case is heard. the variance is not appealed and the building permit was not d.r. it and the building permit was not appealed. at the time, the variance was a very grand table based on the conditions of the site. there was no variance letter stating that there is no opposition submitted to the variance. again, when it went up for 311, there were no d.r.'s filed and

i'm not aware of any opposition in general to the project at the time. in the context has not changed in sven. >> president fung: thank you. >> commissioner honda: additional question. how often has the current administrator extended the variance? or has he? >> i am not aware of that happening. obviously, mr sanchez would have a better idea himself. that was not something i was able to? from our system. i do know that to -- from our knowledge, it does not happen unless it is within the context of what the letter says. which is a lawsuit or appeals. if there had been discretion, that the zoning administrator would have strongly considered using it in this situation because of all the reasons we have mentioned.

nothing has really changed. they basically got it ready to be issued within a year and when they were ready to move forward with it and the issue with the n.s.r., not including the three year requirement which we have not changed. if he felt he had that discussion he would have strongly considered using it. but ultimately it was his determination that he did not have that determination. >> commissioner honda: a comes to mind, we had eight brotherhood way that had not been active on the permits for 15 or 20 years. we voted to allow them to build. that was a planning issue in regards to a variance. >> you may have been. i do not know the specifics of that project. >> president fung: at the risk of opening pandora's box, it is good education for us.

so you stated in the previous testimony that nothing has changed in the conditions surrounding this. but indeed, we had a neighbor stand up and say the conditions have changed. we invested in a solar panel and a solar electric facility. and we had exposure to the sun. that would be a change. that is the first time since i have been on the board which is relatively limited by comparison to six years. how should we consider that without a shadow study or is that something that is a consideration based on other

guidelines of light and air and those don't count, necessarily if all other things are equal? >> a few things there. one, i was specifically referencing the code sections that the variance were obtained for have not changed on those requirements are the same. they are not proposing to change the building and any other way there. the context of the site is still the same and the immediate neighbors. they are are probably some new people who live in the area are people who have different opinions and may then maybe they did back then. the specific issue raised by the speakers tonight was about protecting solar panels. we specifically cannot take that into consideration. i think she mentioned that the state of all the private

agreements something they can discuss privately and come to an agreement to amend the project to help preserve late to the solar panels. it is not something that is taken into consideration. >> commissioner honda: i asked for two reasons. one, how should we deal with it tonight and if it comes off again, we all know what the position is. thank you very much. >> ok. the matter is submitted. >> president fung: commissioners? >> i am not sure what is accomplished by allowing the decision to stand. arguably, if the variance goes away, they have the option to come back and build something that would be code compliant and not accommodate the neighbors. and simply not go for the variance. i also think that there was a lack of clarity and the fact

that building department continued to reissue the permit or extend the permit and take fees, that is another action by a city department. i am bothered by this. >> again, as i disclose, i developed a property across the street. the neighborhood district is one of the toughest and strongest neighbourhoods in the city. they have further restrictions than the planning and building codes. and dealing with the neighbors, if it did not get complaints, it means that the previous owner has worked very closely with the neighbors. i agree with my fellow commissioner in what is accomplished. also the fact that the planning department is going to change their language indicating that n.s.r. indicates that there is some potential confusion and

potential error on the department's behalf. i would allow the build. >> president fung: i am angry -- in agreement with commissioner lazarus. >> i am sort of in between. >> president fung: i am not usually the one that would require additional process, however when i raise the question to the appellants about on what basis the rational -- rationale though they brought forward were not that strong as compared to how definitive -- definitive requirement is written in the letters. i'm sort of in between at the moment.

>> vice-president swig: it would not have been discovered but for somebody filing a complaint. just to say we are starting construction. it is very very late in the ga game. >> commissioner honda: plus as inspector -- >> president fung: they were in the middle of construction as they found this. >> commissioner honda: we have seen this here as well, it is a big mess. i think the process has gone through and, you know, i do feel some empathy for at the newer neighbors who are not involved in that process. it was a lengthy process. also to consider that 2008-2012 in san francisco was quite devastating, and a lot of projects were delayed or postponed because of that money constraint. >> vice-president swig: this is a question for the city attorney. we have a not missing but a conflicted member. does it still require --

>> the only time that are to require less than four votes if there was an agency on the board. depending on the vote we may have to wait -- >> we have a property conflict. >> commissioner honda: we would still need for? >> he would still need for until there is a vacancy on the board. >> we can take a motion. we can take a vote and we can decide to continue, correctly. >> commissioner honda: can i ask a question? i am prepared if commissioner lazarus makes a motion. but i'm thinking in terms of contingency, can this variance -- can there be a rehearing request on the variance? so that the same variance -- so

that is everything -- so that everything expires. >> president fung: you can have a rehearing request on the suspension case. >> commissioner honda: ok. i just wanted to know where we were going in case there was a difference in opinion. >> president fung: if there is a motion, go ahead and make it. >> i will move to grant the appeal and overturn the suspension request on the basis that the zoning administrator aired in his decision. >> do we have to address the variance in this motion? >> i do not think so. >> you may want to provide some additional facts to support the basis. like perhaps the zoning administrator abused his discretion by not considering

the extension of the permit, and also as evidenced by the fact that they've changed their procedure following this case. >> i would have -- i would be happy to include all of that in my motion assuming that it was captured. >> ok. we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to grant the appeal and overturn the suspension request on the basis of the zoning administrator error and abusive discussion by not considering the extensions granted to the building permit and the changed procedure with respect to the variance decision letters. including the three year deadline within the commissions -- conditions. on that motion, president fung? >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> that motion carries. the appeal is granted.

ok. we will now move on to item number 5. this is a rehearing request for for the subject property at 826-827 central avenue. martin is the appellant and is requesting a repeal. they decided to -- in july. they voted 5-02 denied the appeal and uphold the denial of the open space at exposure variance on the basis that the findings required under the planning code have not been met. the variance description was to add one dwelling unit in the ground floor that does not provide any existing unit and the proposed dwelling unit fronted onto central avenue does not meet the minimum exposure requirements.

we will hear first from the requester. you have three minutes. >> hello commissioners. thank you for at the opportunity request a rehearing. i am the appellants. my reason is is to prevent manifest interests and omission of different material facts. that if presented, would present a change of the variance. i have applied for two variances. one for exposure and one for open space. to present an affordable unit on the lower level. at the appeal hearing, the president stated that the reason he would vote against the variances is because neither the appellants or oral arguments

prevented the variance. these criteria are different material facts. they are. one, why extraordinary circumstances for my property because it was originally one property and then split into three. and my property is on a northward slope. two, why the enforcement of the code leads to practical hardship to me and it would be cost prohibitive to give up a new affordable unit otherwise. three, why i am deprived of a substantial property right that similarly situated other property owners had.

for, why granting the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to the property of improvements in the vicinity, because i also have an easement on my neighbor's property. five, why the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent and will not adversely affect the general blend. this was an oversight that the area presented last time. i did not do due diligence but i requested council on multiple occasions to present the highest

criteria in both brief and arguments. i requested council to present the five criteria. i sent in the first draft -- >> sir, your time is up. thank you. we will now hear from the zoning administrator. >> thank you. >> good evening commissioners. i do not really have anything to add to this case. i am available for any questions that you may have. think you. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> commissioners? >> i did not feel this met the

criteria for a rehearing. i did not hear anything that was different. >> president fung: or that couldn't have been submitted earlier. >> commissioner honda: i agree. although i empathize with the project sponsor, this has not reached the bar for manifest in just. >> president fung: i am not in full agreement, but i am sensitive to the fact that the president, you did say, you didn't address the variance. but that was their opportunity. that was their opportunity as commissioner lazarus. they didn't do it. >> commissioner honda: in my case, even if they did, i don't feel my opinion would have changed. >> president fung: is there a motion? >> commissioner honda: i will make a motion to deny the rehearing request on the grounds

that there was no manifest in just. >> so we have a motion from commissioner honda to deny the request on the basis that there was no manifest injustice. on that motion? >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> that motion carries and the request is denied. we will now move on to item number 6 a and six b. this is appeal number 18-049 and 18-050. leonardo and veronica bronco versus the department of building inspection. protesting the issuance on march 28th, 2018 of an alteration permit to comply with nov.

to change three illegal windows to three legal windows with w. 60 fire resistant rating. and they are protesting the issuance on march 28th 2018 to the alteration permit to comply with n.o.v. and change a legal window to one legal window with fire resistant rating and a one hour rating. this is application 201803153781. on june 6, 2018, they voted for-1. they wanted to continue to monitor and revise the structural and architectural plans to meet all the requirements. with the accurate sport scope of work to be determined by d.b.i. on july 18th, 2018, the board

voted 5-0 to continue this matter to allow time for for the party to submit additional briefing to explain how the plans can -- work. and how they are exempt from the cdc. per the president, we will hear from the permit holder first. >> good evening. >> i'm sorry. you have three minutes.

>> replacing framing and changing size or location. there is no change of size or location. the windows will remain

unoperable and it is fully compliant with ab009. notwithstanding the presence of these windows, when the complainants acquired the a joining property, they are appealing the permits on a few merit less grounds. i will not repeat anything we have submitted in our brief but would like to respond to their brief. the august 9 the brief, cannot support the appeal on the points raised by them. number one, the brief asserts, without any evidence, that none of the windows is original to the building and some were added as late as 2011. however, google imaging shows the windows existed in 2002. in fact, the windows are similar to many immediate neighborhood windows that currently exist and have existed for many, many years. with regards to that, i have

some images. if i may quickly present them. >> president fung: overhead, please. >> if you can see the windows here -- the windows here all a joining. the windows we have also here. here, here, here. there are windows here and here. windows here. this is only a sampling. >> sir, your time is up. >> it's the first time. >> thank you. >> you had three minutes total. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we will hear from the

appellant. >> you have three minutes. >> good evening, members of the board. my name is leo brown. this has been a very stressful time. not only time-consuming because of the time for me and my family. he had many chances to provide a full detailed plan in compliance with the fire code, structural code, mechanical code, which includes title 24. but so far, he continues to look for a short cut. on the contrary, i have provided in my briefs three in total so far. fact, the permit holder's plan is not in compliance. which includes, number one, i made improvements on my property, fully vetted, and inspected by the city, which includes the construction of the roof deck and a hatch that is

less than six feet away from the permit holder's illegal window. therefore, permit holder's current plan goes against condition number 6. also permit holder signed the declaration of used limitation, which puts his plan under conditions in case i make such improvements on my property. number two, there is no practical reason to have those windows in the property line. that's the condition number one of ab09, that the permit holder is not meeting. number three, i attached in my brief an e-mail from the city's senior engineer stating that those illegal windows would require significant structure work and detailed plans would be needed to be submitted. so far, we have not received anything. respecting ab09 code, i please ask this board to deny the permit holder's plan. thank you.

>> thank you. now, we will hear from the department. >> d.b.i. just probably give some background on this case again. taking up a lot of our time by the way, but that's ok. with meetings and one thing or another. i have senior building inspector mark walls, along with us tonight here. if there are any technical questions regarding california building code or administrative bull tins, any questions that the commissioners may have, senior building inspector walls is in our plan review division would deal with this a lot more of the pre applications meetings over the current approvals. he would see this a lot more than i would. so i brought him along tonight, for his expertise. just getting back to the case

itself, the d.b.i. issued a notes of violation. a complaint has been filed with this department regarding the installation of windows outside the required building permit. on the third floor of the front building installation of two windows. on the third floor of the rear building installation of four windows. no permit exists. it was to obtain a building permit within a time period indicated to legalize, modify or remove on permitted lot line windows, obtain required inspections to close this "commoditiesthiscomplaint. when the case was heard, i didn't like the description of work on the permit. it talked about legalizing windows but not the actual openings. i asked for more time. the permit ap applicant did meet with me in d.b.i.

they met with senior inspector walls. some were hard regarding the drawings and getting an accurate description of work. at the last hearing, i wasn't here. inspector hernandez was here. i believe some questions were raised on the structural elements. the subsequent decision, i did see the e-mail that the a tell ant had gone to d.b.i. with a photograph. met with a senior inspector who escorted him to met mr. u with a photograph. he wasn't a furred i case. given a machine on a general question. which wasn't really -- i would prefer if appellant and this is a board of appeals issue that they let staff know that.

it might help us, the people dealing with the hearings would know that. at some points they were brought up that were valid. mr. yu, i was made aware of the e-mail when i returned from my work and realized mr. yu wasn't made aware it was an appeals case. we did set up a meeting with mre engineer. mr. yu and him did meet. i was part of that meeting with the permit holder. there was some -- the header issues on the window were addressed. they had been addressed on the plans and there was some scheer wall wirements that in addition to the drawings, they were on the drawings submitted with the brief. i have a letter from mr. wallace. he met with mr. yu.

all of the structural issues have been addressed. at this point, as far as i'm aware, the plans do meet the requirements of ab009 and i just am getting back to the ab009. in our building code in san francisco, there's 100 administrative bulletins. they're in there because of san francisco and the different issues that we deal with when you are trying do construction. there's a lot of good information on them. in the case of ab009, because of our construction goes to the property lines, if someone wants to put a window in, the state building code would prohibit that. there's openings zero to three feet. there's no openings allowed for

the table in california building code. ab009 does allow property line windows if you meet the conditions of the administration tivadministrativebulletin. so it's a good code section. it works very well. it is approved on a case-by-case basis. i would agree tonight, with the appellant, that one of the windows, there is a permit at the appellant's property he is building on that is requiring a roof deck. there is one window that will be closer than six feet to one of the opening on the neighbor's property. that's going to be an issue. i have to inform the appellant as well, because of this whole issue that we brought up here, it's possibly -- there's a possibility his permit has been approved and that was permitted

at the -- for the roof deck, because of the proximity of the skylight opening and the stair going to the roof deck. that is something we need to address. i thought i would add that as well. there's a photograph in the brief of a window, and that will come up in front of that window. if that window is allowed to remain. i talked a lot. i'm available for any questions. i just ask the senior inspector walls with me. hopefully i've covered everything. if there's any questions, i'd like to -- >> i have one. so, the large window, there's several windows. i think there's six openings. the very large one that the tenants are actually here for, so, that's structural. it's a load-baring wall. and that's on the top floor. that load needs -- as i understand it, it should be carried down all the way

straight to the ground, correct? >> i'm not going to answer that question. i'm not an engineer. all i will tell you is following the last hearings, mr. yu and the engineer of this -- of these plans, met at d.b.i. and i have mr. yu satisfied with the structural requirements on the drawings. he stated that to me. mr. wallace sent a letter in basically saying that. i can read the letter out if you want. i'm not going to answer structural questions whether loads get carried and where they get carried. >> ok. >> it's not my job. >> ok. >> i have a question. the window that is problematic, because of the roof deck, but which came first? or does that not matter? >> well, that's a good question. [laughter] the roof deck permit was issued i think 2015.

i have the details of that. >> it's recent? >> yeah. the attorney representing the permit holder started -- stated these windows were in existence for many years. that's not what our notice of violation said. i believe mr. sanchez brought up an overhead that we didn't have those windows there many years ago. you know, properly line windows, i think the permit holder, as far as i know, and i've met him on a daily basis sometimes twice for the last week. has never said to me or disputed the fact that these windows were legally permitted or disputed our notice of violation. that was news to me saying that the windows were with a permit. i'd like to see that permit. the d.b.i. inspector who issued the notice certainly said he couldn't find eye permit for this work. i don't know what comes first -- to answer your question, we're now dealing with the permit to legalize the openings on the

windows for the windows. so, i guess, if you want to know what comes first, the roof deck came first because it was first to get a permit issued. >> ok. >> there's what ki came first te permit or the windows? they were done by previous owners. this gentleman, i'm pretty certain he didn't do the work. he has taken care of work done without a permit by a previous owner. so we do appreciate that. >> i have multiple questions. anybody else? >> i just had -- the aforementioned window that will have something in fron front oft and it will be a problem. look into your crystal ball and tell me what should be done? >> well, we're probably going to issue a correction notice for a wall. he has openings right on property line as well on the roof. they go up. if you do an opening closer than three feet to the property line

on this occupancy, i believe, you would need to have 30 inches on the walking surface of that roof deck, to protect the permit holder, the permit holder's building. >> so that window will get blocked. >> a little bit, yes. >> and so he is aware of that too? whether the window was there, the building is there so it's closer. it would be required whether the window was there or not? >> correct. exactly. it doesn't matter. because he has caught an opening in his building closer than three feet to the property line it should have required a power pit. all this started over this permit for the roof deck. i think the permit holder for the windows complained about the roof deck and the work that he was doing and then when he got his permit he complained about the property line windows. we're used to seeing this. >> and so that, again, that

window is not a legal window in that there's no record of a permit on that window? >> that's what our notice of violation stated, yes. they subsequently obtained these permits to comply with our notice of violation. >> and in your opinion, should that window be abated either by -- >> that's not before us, though. >> yeah, ok. is that part of the permit? >> no. >> it's not part of the permit. >> it's just an exiting window that is a -- >> it has a future corrective action. >> that may have a future corrective action in front of us. >> which they come back. >> in the norm of a notice of violation. >> it's not a window but a skylight. a opening for a stair to go onto the roof deck. >> it's not a window. >> i should have taken your

advice. >> what was that. >> you told us to revoke it the first time. >> i remember that. >> i didn't want to add extra process and i thought who would go back and i wanted to resolve it here. >> it's been brought up by both sides. we have to structurally sound deline. design. >> i don't know if mr. walls wants to answer or you want to answer, is this a revision now? >> when i was here the last tim- >> it was different than the original permit? >> i thought it was going to be a special conditions permit. which is why i actually didn't even refer it to structural because drawings would have to still be -- the header size is what i was worried about. the plans would have to be reviewed by d.b.i. but i thought it would be a special conditions permit. after the first night.

i knew the scope of work was wrong and i knew the header details needed to go on there. but, i was thinking of a special conditions permit. that's what i was thinking. >> we did raise questions on the fact that there were no structural details. it was all field adjustments to be made. >> that's right. that was partly me as well. you give someone a permit. they'll put a table of the header size on the drawings. the building inspector will go out there and the engineer goes there and they'll open it up and if it's meant to be a 4x12 we're ok. if it's under sized we could have a problem. my thinking is we would do a field observation and see what it was. it could be a revision permit required for more work. i believe, in the interim, the engineer has gone to the site. they've opened up the wall and

he is satisfied with the header sizes. that's what his letter says. maybe i should read it out? >> i do have some questions on that letter. we can discuss that more fully. i don't know whether you want to answer or mr. wallis. the structural engineer's letter states the things he added for thin walls for additional straps and everything else, he says it improves the structural response, which is probably true. nowhere in that letter does he state that he is now upgrading this to code. in terms of those openings. >> code structural design? >> yes. so, you are saying that this is been agreed upon by your structural reviewer, is it to code? >> according to mr. yu he is satisfied with the structural

design? >> ok. >> well, i'll let him answer. i don't believe he does structural. >> you could answer it. >> mr. yu was leaving on vacation last week. i know it's a rush to get this -- they met twice. this letter was the result of it. well actually, this is april 9th. >> the letter is not so definitive. >> i think, my understanding is that mr. yu was satisfied with the revision to the changes to the plans. there was a few e-mails going back and fourth about it and they were satisfied with it. that permit, of course, if you did up hold the permit and these plans, they would still need to be reviewed by d.b.i. if we do a special conditions permit? >> yep. >> yep. >> or, you know, so --

>> anyway. that's where we are. >> since you came all this way, do you want to say anything? >> what i would like, i think there was some discussion about the california building code on percentages and stuff like that of openings and what's permitted and that's why senior inspector wallis is here. >> i always want to hear. >> i want to thank him for being here too, you know. >> sure. >> good afternoon president, commissioners. senior building inspector d.b.i. here to elaborate to the best of my ability on building code and san francisco administrative bull tins. in regard to property line openings.

>> between zero and three feet they allow no openings with one exception but it would not apply to this. between three and five feet limited. 15% and that would be protected opening and the definition of a protected opening would be a fire-rated window assembly. so you have unprotected openings, non rated windows, you have unprotected sprinkler protected openings and then you have protected openings. so, the allowance that ab009 makes for property line windows between 0 and throw feet is that one, the window assembly, based on the rating of the wall for the occupancy and type of construction, be approved at minimum would be 60 minutes and one hour.

in an occupancy also requires sprinkler protection in the event of a fire. the glazing protects against the fire and the smoke and the affluence of the fire but does not in its self pre the transfer of the heat at the property at 155° or so the film would break and that would douse the window with water subsequently, protecting the inside of that building from fire from the other side. that is kind of the -- what the intent is is to protect and those are the requirements for an r2 occupancy in this case. >> with this said, it's been revised to include the rated assembly for the window. and sprinkler heads.

>> yes. the sprinklers will be a requirement and will be on a separate permit. sprinkler permits are stand-alone permits. >> there's no reference to it. >> that would be a requirement for every opening that they're proposing to install or legalize since they're already there. to elaborate a little bit on existing window conditions, this is something that happens quite often. a lot of buildings are really old buildings. they had openings on property line. the difficult part is for the applicant or the project sponsor to demonstrate and prove to us that that window actually existed. in speaking with the defendants on the appeal, they've never, like joe duffy said, they've never really said to their knowledge the windows were put in without the benefit of a permit.

and they were trying to comply with ab009 to the best of their ability and from what i understand from the permits and everything, they've done that with the rated window assemblies and they filed the proper documents in conjunction with ab009, they've been recorded with the city and county of san francisco recorders' office and knonote orized. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> good evening, thank you for taking your time and wanting fair outcomes for all of us here. my family lives long-term in the apartment in question. so please remember that our life will be the most affected by the decision you make today.

so thank you for keeping us in mind and the impact it has already had on us and the future. i agree that the window should be made fire safe and that should resolve the core issues we're here for today. and secondly, i do want to share with you how much our ba way of life is being affected. as i mentioned before, i'm going to recap a couple things i feel is important for me to say out to you all since you are trying to ensure a fair outcome for us. we have lived in north beach for the eight years. and are deeply rooted in the city that we love and we're building our future here. the apartment will be out home for the foreseeable future. the background on us, we are good people with strong community values who are known to maintain good neighborly relations as always. both our parents, my husband and mine, we're kind-hearted people and have been taught to be the

same. my husband is a softwaren again ire and i'm a owner of a dental practice in the city of san francisco in the union square. and we live and own businesses here in san francisco and have been contributing our best every day to the city. both personally and professionally. we work long hours and give back to our community. and coming home to this home, this apartment, and having dinners and just enjoying in our house and in front of those windows that are being talked about today is a big part of my family's life. i must say this process of appeals has been a little taxing and strenuous on us, as you can imagine. this is the third time we're here today and i'm appreciative you are so, you know, very understanding of what is going on here and it really means a lot to me and my family. a family family and creating a loving home atmosphere are core and essential feelings that

define homeliness. as of these few months, i've been unable to enjoy my new place where we moved just a few months ago as my own home. we've sacrificed a lot already. this is our dream home. you know, so dear board members, this is not just a window it's part of our life that brings out the best in us that we can give back to our society and our community. i can see with the full conviction as i walk into my office with a bright smile and that's saying a lot for my patients and for those who i really care for. this is my family's day-to-day life and any impact is harsh and it will be a hard ship on us. thank you so much. i request you to allow my family to continue to enjoying in its current form the windows. >> any other public comment.

you already heard from my wife. thank you so much for taking the time and effort to ensure a good outcome for us. and keeping all of us -- taking all of our best interest in mind. you know, i think my wife already spoke about how stressful this over all process has been for us. i understand that we have to do it to ensure a good and fair outcome. one thing i do want to point out is the windows were already in place, i don't know permit wise from 2010 on wards and way back before that. as i might have been through google search back. i saw those have been in place.

of course you know the time lines. i mean, we have talked about it a lot so you guys are aware of the timelines after that. one thing i want to point out, as a tenant here, from my point of view, and i'll be a tenant here and a tenant in other buildings, what i'm seeing is my landlord, he acquired the building last year and he has a notice of violation. actually, i'm not sure of the process but when you are going through this i learned many details here. he got a notice of violation. as a landlord, he had a lot of options and paths to go down but the first thing he did is this is a fire and safety issue i'll bring it up to code. no matter the cost and whatever, right. and he went ahead and he taught best and tried to upgrade the windows and then the whole process started rolling. now it has been kind of -- now if it turns out that this