the entire square footage of the building including the lower level. >> it's described as a two story home and now having 650 square foot addition on top of the two units. so altogether it becomes a 5 bath property. >> it sounds right. i have to check on the number of bedrooms. with the two units being maintained. so sorry for dovetailing on you. we are both confused. the property will have all the bedrooms that they state however subdivide # -- divided by 2.

>> i'm sorry i was not on the board when you had the previous discussion about the green roofs and deck. i suspect you will have more in the future. that it's a divide that it is a green roof or a deck and seems to me that it could be both. this green roof is it reasonable to conclude that this green roof could be used as a deck and has been approved with that risk and so that everybody is clear. i want -- i hear from mr. williams that it's a green roof but it

could be both. >> there is no indication that it is occupied as a green roof. >> maybe i will wait for deliberation. i was going to say something about the green roof and deck distinction in case it is helpful but i don't know if it's an appropriate time. >> let's hear from dbi. >> >> good evening, commissioners, matthew green dbi. this was filed february 18, 2020, after approval by planning the site permit application was reviewed and approved on may 18, 2022.

issued june 9, 2022. no construction can begin before the first construction is issued. the appellant stated the bedrooms in the third floor is illegal. i believe she is saying she's concerned about exiting from the bedroom. however, it clarifies that emergency escape and rescue openings before the first floor are allowed to discharge in the rear yard if it's 25 foot deep and the rear yard is 28 foot deep and this was verified by the plan checker as well as the supervisors. the appellant believes the valuation was too low and using the schedule, this cost schedule is based on the addition of square footage with add on for specific items such as a new kitchen and new bathroom. we ran

the numbers again and $117,000 is accurate. it shows a green roof and there is requirement for green roof for residential renovation at this time. new construction would require for a solar system to remove and replace a solar system. the permit was issued properly and should be upheld. i'm available for any questions you should have. >> thank you. i don't believe we have any questions right now. >> we are going to move for public comment. if you have public comment, please raise your hand. i don't see any public comment. we will move on for rebuttal. ms. kim, you have three minutes. >> hello, i would like to

clarify that the issue was not whether or not the green roof or we don't. no identification was required. you have to have different notification and the plans and the requirement are different for a roof deck. the permit holder plans do not meet the requirements of the roof deck. what the planning department said was not correct. with regard to the permit, we are just asking for the physical permit to be stated correctly. it doesn't show the green roof. it shows the roof deck. again there is confusion because the attorney keeps referencing a third floor roof deck when it's actually a terrace. it's off their bedroom and goes from the stairs to the green roof. that's the roof deck that they are

talking about, but it's actually a physical terrace. they completely take over the roof that they say terrace by adding an addition to it. as for the property, it is used as a single family home although i have never seen her parents living there. with regard to the building at the egress issue, it's not the third bedroom but the bedroom between the first and second floor with know egress to any exterior access. but most importantly, we want a clarification about the green roof and roof deck. we want the green roof which we don't have an objection to, they can have the green roof, we just want the permit to be clear in saying that it is a green roof and not

a roof deck. there is no roof deck on the plan. with the guardrail, the reason that it is necessary for safety. we would like the green roof moved back to the south side. all other three sides of the guardrail on this green roof has a setback of the roof. except the south side. >> you have 30 seconds left. that's what we would really like clarified the correction on the physical permit. i spoke with monica, she did erroneously put down green roof on the physical permit, and corrected only the database system. the reason this is all confusing is because the permit holder filed for a permit

back in 2020 for green roof. >> thank you, your time is up. >> no problem. we will now hear from the permit holder. mr. williams, attorney for the permit holder. you have three minutes. >> thank you, steve williams again. again, you just hear a scatter shot approach. can i have the overhead again. this is a roof deck approved on the third floor. it's right there on the plans. i don't know why they keep saying it's not there. it is a two unit building. it's going to be 3600 square feet when it's offend which is about 1800 square foot per unit, much smaller than the 2700 square foot next door. but this green roof, this was directly addressed by the

planning department. i will submit this so the board members can read it. this specifically states and analysis done by the planning commission. this is the last page of the dr analogies. it says if and when used as an occupiable floor, it's may affect the privacy of the dr's home and therefore approve this with the property line. it was directly addressed. that's the issue and they set that back for them. as far as the fall protection, i went to the manual compiled nearly ten years ago by dbi and the planning commission department and quoted it extensive in the brief. if you look at pages 9 and 10, it says

specifically working on the roof is dangerous due to risk of falling and can be mitigated with protection measures by providing a railing. cal osha requires safety. i don't understand the objection to the safety measures which is a guardrail which is now setback in the instant that this is now becomes an occupied roof and the stairs on the north side of the appellant and the folks on the north side have no objection to the stairs going to the green roof. it would have no impact at all on the kim's. there was a green roof approved, there was also a roof deck approved. the confusion is in no

one's mind but the appellant. the planner has clarified that the reference to a roof deck is the new con figured roof deck is the third floor off the bedroom and green roof on the front. do not remove the elements of safety from this roof. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the planning department. >> >> thank you, i did contact monica and the architect at the planning department at the commission hearing for dr, they both informed me that they did treat the green roof as a feature that may be occupied and the department had no issues with the third deck at the top

of the story should that have been proposed with the condition that the guard rails be pulled in from the side property line. i recognize it's labeled as a green roof and we are okay with that. >> >> thank you. president swig? >> does it matter one way or the other on the final plans for the comfort of the appellant whether it is noted as green roof or roof deck? i think this is the level other than than go back to the green roof to the -- but does it matter one way or the other? are we making a mistake by not calling it a green roof. can this be considered a

typographical error, and for the comfort of the appellant, can we have that designation as a roof deck replaced with green roof without anything, any dominoes being affected? >> i can go ahead and relabel something on the plans. that's up to the applicant and their wishes. i believe i'm hearing whether we should label this as a roof deck. >> i'm very clear that a roof is occupiable and that it could be

treated like a roof deck. there is no issue here. the issue is that the appellant seems to be upset that that space which is a green roof labeled as a green roof on the plan somehow is being interpreted in the final plans in the planning department as a roof deck. can we do something about that within the planning department. or is the appellant incorrect and is it called a green roof in the plans in the planning department. >> the planning department took this issue in dr and voted 7-0 to allow for the green roof to be labeled as the green roof knowing and discussing it that yes, you can occupy a green roof. >> it seems there is upset from

the appellant side that there is a typo somewhere that says it's a roof deck. personally i don't have a problem with that. i'm just trying to make an appellant comfortable with something that they think is wrong. i really don't care one way or another, but i understand they are pretty much the same, but i'm just asking, that's all. >> thank you. >> does it matter? >> to planning? >> to anybody, except the appellant? >> i'm not sure. i'm just letting you know what we went through in the review process and how we basically interpret how that space could be used being there is no provision that could not occupy the green roof. >> right, let's put that aside for a second. if this is not clearly labeled a green roof, can the permit

holder at some point take away the green roof and put a surface on it? >> yeah. >> it doesn't matter one way or the other? >> they can have a roof deck on the top of the three story addition and the planning code would allow for it because it meets the code and the guideline. >> i'm just trying to an appease the public and trying to find every angle to make it fair for both parties. sometimes i get myself in trouble. >> mr. travsvina? >> thank you. i will try to frame it in a question. it seems to me that i differ from mr. swig and the assurance that ms.

kim is looking for isn't the label but she doesn't want the area beyond the guardrail to be used and occupied. is there any purpose for the guardrail to reduce the use or occupants of the area between the guardrail and the edge of the roof? does the guardrail serve that purpose? >> that may be a question for the applicant. we do sometimes pull back rails to keep the occupancy within the area defined by the guard rails. that is not to prevent someone from going over the guard railings if there is greenery on the other side. >> i think we can establish that

it's going to be a fear that it's going to be a party deck -- or a roof deck and who put in the guardrails at that point >> that is approving by the planning department and the sign approach is very common for a lot of our decks agency the ones we saw tonight pulling back from the property line, pulling roof deck from the guard rails are very common in almost all of our projects. >> but it's your idea that in this case, it doesn't provide any assurance or protection that the area between the guardrail and the edge will be any less used just for having a guardrail there? >> that's correct.

>> thank you. >> >> commissioner chang? >> thank you. another clarification question, procedurally is there any difference from the planning department lens in process between a roof deck and a green roof? >> okay, i think that was the concern raised by the appellant and it seems like the intent of the guard rails pulled back five feet from the property line is to discourage the use between the property line and the guardrail that you can't necessarily prohibit it. it's just the intent behind that, is that right? >> pretty much. i mean most people don't go to the edge of the building without any sort of safety mechanism 30 feet up in the air. >> thank you so much.

>> thank you, we will now hear from the department of building inspection. >> thank you. there is nothing to prevent someone without a guardrail. it provides the minimum safety standards and advises not to go over that. it guides people to not inadvertently want to go to the rail.

>> is it hard to add the term green roof to the term permit. can monica go to the permit to write it green deck to make it abundantly clear. >> it's easy to do. i'm just not sure that whether it's legal or not of the approved permit. >> that would constitute a change to the permit that would require four vote and would require addition of the language. >> thank you. >> commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> commissioners travsvina, any comment, questions, motion?

>> i think the prerogative of being a new member to defer to my senior members here and what your suggestions are before i comment one way or the other. >> commissioner chang? >> thank you president swig. i'm inclined to deny this appeal in that it was properly issued. >> i would agree. >> you know, we got, you saw me get hung up on semantics and fall right down into the swamp with a muddy face. it's been clarified that a green deck, a roof deck, pretty much all the same. if we wanted to take the extra step at your suggestion to have two words changed, that would require a whole other,

another hearing. we are dealing with this in another hearing. i don't think it's necessar if i have your permission and i would move forward in that spirit. >> [inaudible]

>> can look for any possible reason to prolong a process of what they don't like, but i do feel that in the kim's case that it's not semantics, it's just a basic understanding of # a feeling that there is a difference between a green roof and a roof deck and to help people understand early in the process that neither side has to go to a prolonged effort to get some of these questions resolved. >> we encourage everybody is encouraged to talk to each other so they don't even to have get

here. today were two good examples of that. you are absolutely right. we encourage the public that they should be talking to each other as much as possible. sometimes there are circumstances that prevent that, one party or another. sometimes they just never get there which is why they pay us the big bucks to hold these hearings. that's why for your benefit i'm saying this, that's why i bent over backwards to make sure we have super clarity from the building department and planning, so everybody, they may not walk out of here happy but they walk out of here knowing to the best of our ability knowing the facts that are on the table. i agree with you completely. in a perfect world everybody would talk to each other and we

wouldn't have to convene but that's where we are headed. >> and the efforts to do that because even though we do not have a packed house here, there are people that watch the proceedings and this is ultimately the way to educate the public as to what their rights and responsibilities are. >> you are absolutely correct. in the case of roof decks, we will hear more and in the case of decks in backyards, we will hear more because those are areas of concern between neighbors and also areas of concern within a neighborhood. so become familiar with these types of discussions for the future. thank you very much for your point of view. >> commissioner chang, would you

like to move forward with that motion? >> sure. you have taken the floor today. >> no, in a couple weeks we won't have that pleasure so we want to take advantage of this as much as possible. >> sure. i move to deny the appeal on the basis that it was properly issued. >> we have a motion on the appeal to deny based on the motion that it was properly issued. >> [roll call] >> thank you. that motion is denied. the appeal is denied. >> thank you. >> we are done. >>

>> everything we do in the tenderloin, we urban outfit. here, this gives us an opportunity to collaborate with other agencies and we become familiar with how other agencies operate and allow us to be more flexible and get better at what we depo in the line of work in this task. >> sometimes you go down and it's hard to get up. so we see ourselves as providing an opportunity for the unhoused to get up. and so i really believe that when they come here and they've said it, this right here is

absolutely needed. you can't ask for nothing better. >> the tenderloin is the stuff that ain't on the list of remedies, liked the spiritual connection to recovery and why would i? why would i recover? what have i got to live for? things like that. and sharing the stories. like i was homeless and just the team. and some people need that extra connection on why they can change their life or how they could. >> we have a lot of guests that will come in and say i would like -- you know, i need help with shelter, food, and primary care doctor. and so here, that's three rooms down the hall. so if you book them, they get all of their needs taken care of in one go. this is an opportunity for us here in the tenderloin to come together, try out these ideas to see if we can put -- get -- connect people to services in a

>> good morning. i want to thank all of you for joining us i'm david which you the city attorney of san francisco we are here to announce 2 lawsuits fileed protect the patients of laguna honda and keep this institution open. my office filed a case on behalf of the city of san francisco, the reigning law group fileod behalf of the patients of laguna honda. for over 150 years willing lag provided critical skilled nursing and rehab service for our most vulnerable for seniors, family members with disabilities, those who can't