>> good evening member to march first san francisco board of appeals. president rick swig will preside and joined by jose lopez. commissioner lemberg. trs vina and epileer and deputy city attorney hol provide needed legal advice. and i'm julie rosenberg the executive director we be joined by the city departments that will know presentlying before the board this evening. tina tammy the department za representing plan and matthew

green chief building inspector. the guidelines requests that you silence electronic devices so they will not disturb. no eating or drinking. the rowels of presentation appellates, permit holders are given 7 minutes and 3 minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated must include comments within these periods. members not affiliated have 3 minutes to address the board and no rebutally. our legal assistance will warn you 30 seconds before your time is up. 4 votes are required grant an appeal or modify. if you have questions about a rehearing or schedules e mail board of appeals. public access and participation are of importance to the board. sfgovtv is broadcasting and strolling live and we will have the 8 to receive public comment for each item on the agenda.

sfgovtv is also providing closed captioning. to watch it on tv go to sfgov.org cable 78. tell be rebroadcast on friday at 4 pille on. public comment can be provided in 3 ways. one in person. i have zoom. go to the website and click on wrom or by phone. call 699-900-6833. access code: 872 7652 9542 ## sfgovtv is strollingly instructions on the screen if you are wang the live stroll or brusque to which block your number dial star scent, the phone number. lynch for the public comment portion and dial star 9 equal to raising your hand. you will be brought in the hear when it is your turn you may

have to dial star 6 to unmute. you will have 3 minutes am have a verbal warning 30 seconds before your time is up. there is a delay in live proceedings and what is broadcast. it is important people call nothing reduce the sound on tv's or computers. if anyone on zoom need a disability accommendation or assistance make a request in the chat function. or sends an e mail. the chat function cannot be used to proride comment or opinions . note this we will take public comment from those members who are present not guilty recommend. now we will wear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. any member may speak without taking an oath if you testify tonight and wish to have the

board give testimony weight, raise your right hand and say, i do, after you are worn inform do you swear the testimony you are about to give be the truth and nothing but the truth? okay. thank you. if you are a participate and not speak put your zoom speaker on mute. we are now moving on to item 1 which is general public comments this is an opportunity for anyone who would like to poke on a matter in the jurisdiction but that is not on tonight's cal dash. anyone withhold like to speak on a subject matter not on the calendar? we'll move on to item 2. commissioner comment and questions? >> commissioners, first of all, i like to welcome miss hubert to our panelling. hopefully you will keep us out of trouble. thank you very much. combebls have questions or

comments in >> i just echo president swig said. welcome, we are help to have you on board and i look forward to many, many very interesting conversations about this board's legal in's and out's. [laughter]. >> i like to echo that welcome. thank you so much for your service and for our transition to the city. and the county. and very much look forward to working with you. would this are we going to have givener he moveod and begin us jen instead an upgrade. i gallon ahead and thank him for his service. he has been a tremendous asset,

to the board. during the time he worked with us. and i have felt privileged to be able to sit next to him and pick his brain even in the middle of the meeting. so,mented to thank him for his great service to the city. >> commissioner trs vina. >> welcome to you and thanks to mr. givenr and your team who were representative this board and our proceedings. i want to note that we have 2 very young people here in the audience. and i think it is irrelevant person one of the roles of this board is to make, have people have -- city government and the work make sense to average

people of young, old, homeowners, renters. people who are desiring to keep a tree. people who desire to remove a tree and everything in between. we cannot be successful in that role without the city attorney's office. thank you for this and i want to welcome the 2 young people here. mr. eppler. >> thank you. i have been amazed of how much of our work is making sure that the communities is heard. making sure that they have that last opportunity to be heard and helpingly educate the community on the process and procedures of the city so than i can effectively add roicate for their needs even if wore not able to provide their outcome i hope the young folks get a taste how city government works and

thank you for being here today. took a lot of mileage. and hopefully you know you will have an easier go. thank you. thank you all for the warm welcome. happy to be here. >> and i didn't say, thank you to john give ner he was good and stepped in when he was not supposed to. and as provided a great service and we dope low appreciate it. and one thing, jen, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 lawyers and there is the out liar. you are surrounded. or don't pick on me. okay. >> okay. thank you. is there public comment on this item. raise your hand. don't see public comments so we will move to item 3 the adoption of the minutes. buffer for discussion possible adoption are minutes of february

22, 23 meeting. >> i had a correction i many to e mail you and forgot. i'm sorry. of but the correction i move to adopt minutes with the sing lawyer edit of the spelling of the last name of appellate in number 5. i know that we spelled it the way it was subwarhol. at some point during the hearing i assume it stay the same in the appeal but for the speaker list i would fix the spelling. >> because we were going by information he gave us. >> right. >> no and he changed it. i do think. -- >> he changed his name on the record at the hearing? >> yes. >> okay. >> i will confirm this and what do you believe it should be sab

not sub? i assume that is the case. we will make that change and with that edit i move to adopt the minutes. why okay. so we have is there public meant? raise your hand in >> no public comment on the motion to adopt the minutes amended vice president lopez. >> aye >> commissioner trasvina. >> aye >> commissioner eppler. >> aye. >> president swig. >> aye. >> the minutes are adopted as amended we are moving to item

number 4. so this is appeal number 22-088 terrance and marreen marseille. 225 avenue issuance on december 17 to todd bearardy of @ation revision to permit. add one third floor deck and one roof deck. we will hear prosecute appellates first. >> good evening members of the board. steve williams representing terrance and marlene marseille. they will start off the presentation tonight. >> good evening and thank you for hearing our case. being we have the over head, please? >> thank you. the main reason we purchased our home was the open area floor plan of the second story family room. and the heart of our home and it is where we spend majorities of

our time the second story bedroom with light and openness was perfect for our growing family. by the way, we are the direct neighbors to 285 sea cliff. the proposal to build a recessed northern deck so close to our family room presents a complete invasion of our privacy and openness. recessing a deck 42 inches does in the account for the deck's usage. it is in the account for individuals tall are than 42 inches. and being in close proximity to and peer in our window which were protected urn our settlement agreement. the deck would extend 12 feet beyond the northern wall of the third story addition. and this also is in violation of the setback requirements of the

nsr and settlement agreement not only protected side windows are impacted but the front as well. our home is setback a bit. the decks can be a source of problems e approximately when you live close to one another. ordinance had they want. tall heating lamps. lighting, bbq's hot tubs. once it is built it is built. a deck was proposed on the same northern roof area in assessment 1987. and that is exhibit 18. to our brief. that was removed during negotiations with the perries. had the perry's proposed recessing the decks we would not have agreed to such a settlement. during negotiations the zoning administrator and the senior

planner came to our home and viewed the family room in the second story bedroom of took photos of the impacts the third story would have on us. both gentlemen also visited the perry's at 285 sea cliff. in the settlement and nsr the perry's agreed to several setbacks. row move of the northern roof deck and agreement to keep our family room windows clear of obstruction as well as keeping 4 windows in the bedroom clear n. settlement agreement section 3 was to be no further construction in any manner on our directly above the existing roof areas of 285 sea cliff. aside from the subject addition as approved by our architect. we believe that this made it

clear nanothing is to be done to the existing roof areas that might obstruct our windows and privacy. the proposal to break in the existing officer areas for the 2 decks, leaving an open hole and putting in a recessed deck certainly is new construction. no matter how you look at it. and that was many to be forbidden in the nsr and settlement agreement under section 3. it was in the part of the original approved plan. nor was it submitted with i third story addition. outside of the third story addition, the remaining roof areas were to remain as is. thank you very much. >> steve williams again. the sponsors have not been

honest or transparent with terand he marlene and not being honest with the board. the brief is inaccurate and misleading start with the first page of the brief. they start with a description of september mote with tercompetence marlene they claim to presented the plans of the recessed deck. the same plans before you tonight. this is false. and the statements they attribute are false the fact is the permit holders applied overnight counter for revision permit may of leftier to add 3 roof decks. the decks were to be built on the officer surfaceseen though they had the deed restriction. if you look at exhibit 5 of the brief that is the application sum refor the decks it dates in may. of last year. exhibit 6 are the plans that were submitted and those were also the plans that were taken

to that meeting in september and rejected boy planning. look at the notes on exhibit 5 you see that. and so, they claim to presented these. they were not created yet. they were created after the meeting on september 19. so these plans were never shared with marlene any time or never submitted. they were submitted the permit issued and appeal was filed that's had they saw the plans zero out reach throughout this entire thing. as they play fast and loose with the fact it is they are playing fast and loose with the applicable law. cited case boxer verz us beverly hills inverse condemnation case with plan planning of trees and site for the interpretation. but they provided a partial quote. the quote they provide states

the general rule that restrictive covenants construed against the person seek enforcement. i brought copies of the case. if you want them. so the rest the quote reads, it is trough that the intent of the parties and object of the deed restriction given the instrumented just and fair interpretation entension determine from the document as a whole and still give affect every part of it. this is exactly what we are asking for tonight. is that you read the flow documents as a whole and this they be enforce in the a way that makes sense. this interpretation does not make sense. >> thank you. time. >> thank you. >> thank you a question from commissioner lemberg. i have a couple questions first,

for appellates. you may have noticed i'm the spelling enforcer. i noticed your last name was spell in the 2 ways i want to get confirmation to the correct spelling. >> marseille. marseille. and other are for ms. huber last week i asked a question regarding we were allowed to consider ccnr for ho athe question is similar but are we allowed consider a recorded notice of special restriction and if so, or if not, how does the appellates notification to planning of the issuance of the

notice of special restriction affect the analysis on this point? >> i believe the board can consider the notice of special restriction here. the second question would be more properly answered by dbi. the notification piece i understand it is over the counter they are familiar with the notice restrictions and best position it answer that question. >> okay. >> and follow up to this, can you -- recorded notice of special restriction and recorded ccnr seem similar can you distinguish why we were not allowed consider ccnr's what is the difference and where we consider one and not the other. >> i think it is proper.

i'm not familiar with the circumstances of the case. last week and i apologize i don't know i will be able to address the difference. here. >> >> thank you. >> if i could. based on my history of being here. ccnr's are baked into the deed and it come if i different direction. nsr, we, this body, could condition the issuance of a permit with a permit nsr. we are have the ability to invoke or require or whatever this would not invoke a ccnr. get to that point. >> that makes sense. thank you. why do you have further question

for mr. williams y. no. >> thank you, commissioner trasvina? >> thank you i want to express my sympathy for the marseilles when thought than i had everything resolve in the 19 nerve and lived with the security of resolving temperature having the city involved with the nsr and become here today. with neighbors. the nsr says no further construction. shall be permitted which would result in structure or on or above the existing roof areas. what is the structure that is being at issue here? there is several. the decks are still all on the officer. and if you spent time with my

brief you see i make that argument. these are still officer decks they are described as officer decks the permits are officer decks. so well is still they violate the letter of the nsr from this point of vow. if you look at the plans there are structures. >> you are saying that the deck is not the roof it is structure and it it is on the officer. it is still on the officer. and well is also a large hatch which will stick up some 36 inches above the officer. there are sky lights which are also going to be above the officer and on the officer surbunkham they are violating it numerous ways with the interpretation put on it by themselves and planning. >> so. >> and the rest of the sentence i quoted talks about the existing officer areas. >> can you distinguish the

existing roof area in the nsr with the officer proposed by the permit holder? >> well, you have to read the whole thing. that the it is still above the existing officer area and still on the existing roof area. and you know to if you read it with the settlement agreement you have to it is attached as an exhibit it describes the officer areas kept clear for the windows the intention of the parties 35 years ago may not have draft today well was this there would be no construction further construction on those areas left open in front of the windows. because that is what this was a very large construction project to add a third story. and we provided photos exhibit low is the photos when it was a

one story building as the marseilles building it is 2 story building. and if comper se this to the photos to exhibits 19, which is the of prior project sponsor rendzerring it shows exactly in the words of the documents. so, to mes interpretation that is used here to dig hot tubs, like, take it to the next level you being put i hel now floor on. take it down a couple inch and go the new third floor this is the interpretation they have come up with no one 35 years ago imagined they would sink the deck slightly and put them where they were taken off and that's what happened here. >> i'm not sure you say that

if than i done imagine it it is open territory which is what the other side is saying. i assure you the 117 pages that constitute the record if everybody involved i read it all if this case and this week is like any other week i assure you my colleagues on the commission have as well, i just want to ask you one more thing about the xefdz the parties intebts on signing the nsr is the only thing we have the nsr in terms had the perry's intended? >> well we have their actions and signing the documents. their removal of the 41 deck an exact location where hay now want to put a deck. and you have the letters to the lawyers. from 35 years ago which. >> that's from the

marseille's. it was but confirms their intention i can't think of better prove than the parties showing up that was my intention in if interpreted this way i never would have signed it. >> thank you. >> we'll hear from the permit holders. welcome you have 7 minutes y. thanks. hello president wig and members. thank you for meeting with us. i'm alisa and this is my husband todd and our 2 kids kia and gunner we lived in san francisco for 28 years after a year search to find a family home we purchased in december of 21. sorry we'll pause the time someone was interrupting. and the intf me moving close to

daughter's school we planned for a remodel right away. within a week of closing on the house we walked the neighbors at 275 sea cliff and introduced ourselves and gave contact information in case the construction work bothered them or if they had questions. we met terry who seemed amenable and marlene was not home. prior to submitting permits we made the marseille's aware and offered to discuss them. over the following year we proposed meetings to rerue the plan. provided plans at the marseille's request thee time ands contractor john murphy fielded calls and requests from them. we tried to comp moiz but the marseille's wants to hire a lawyer. we had to hire a lawyer as well. our intentions are to remodel the home to accommodate or family and my parents who will

need to move in with us in the near future. our neighbors have stopped work on our home and prevented us from moving our family if in we are here to ask you allow us to move forward. thank you. >> good evening commissioners this permit is for 2 snaul decks 72 both are modest in size and recessed below the existing receive. in 1987 the appellates oppose a third story addition bia prior owner it is parties entered a settlement green light to increase set become and provision to restrict future height increases the agreement called for i record document this restricts future development. nsr's are required boy zoning administrator to prevenn future

enlargements to variances. but this 35 year old nsr is unique it is memory yellizing a private agreement with 2 parties to protect the appellate's private views. the nsr probabilities 3 actions raising the roof line, the roof ridge and increasing the height of the third story. in short, the nsr applies to additions not subtractions this permit is for a subtraction. show the computer screen. of as you see, the approved deck mrrns entirely below the existing officer and are consistent with the terms of the nsr. the top officer ridge will be lowered by a foot. the decks are entirely code compliant and could not possible low impact the appellate's light and air as both are located below the existing building.

the plans were reviewed by the za and confirmed they were consistent with the nsr. the skoi light is in the part of this project. and the officer hatch is sunk below in a well and not above the existing officer. the appellate's clearly understand the project is consistent with the terms of the nsr and instead argue that you should enforce the spirit of the agreement. california luclear this restrictive agreements such as this issue not favord and interpreted against the person soak to enforce the appellates gained the benefit of the bargain the 87 project was miffed to protect their vows. and the permit holders are in the pursuing height increases or increases in bulk. still in the satisfied, the appellates are now soak to prohibit any decks from builteen when they are baptist below the officer. neither the planning code nor

nsr prohibits all decks. permit holders worked with planning every step and resunrised plan to ensure the decks complied and limit any potential impacts from neighbors. both decks are modest in size and the third floor deck is over 20 feet away from the appellate's builds the photo had scaffolding this is not part of this project. there is no way this will impact their vows. the roof deck is 20 feet away from their building and over 50 feet away from the appellate's own roof deck. the accusations of lack of out reach are inaccurate. here is an e mail confirming alisa and todd reached out in december 21 after they bought their home and informed of

plans. this is an e mill from june 22 asking to meet witness they heard the appellates had issue with their deck plans. here is an e mail from august 22, sending them i copy of plans and asking again to meet. this is an e mail for september asking if there was recommend for a compromise. this was all before the permit was issued they tried reach an agreement with appellates after the appeal extending briefing dead line and continuing the hearing multiple times all discussions were unsuccessful. and these are the communications related to the officer deck than i have also repeatedly reached out to their neighbors regarding on going construction ensuring everything is lessens the impact

to their neighbors. they designed the decks consistent with the nsr come entirely below the existing officer to preserve appellate's views. they want to move on with the project and than i can move in with their family. we therefore request that the board deny the appeal and uphold the permit. thank you. >> a question from commissioner lemberg. why thank you for your testimony. i do you know -- am it is heard not to see both side in this matter. what i'm struggling with is the plain language in the nsr itself. had i believe is uncontest today applies to this project we have been advised we are allow to consider the terms and i'm going to read from it. the restriction and condition of which notice begin this upon completion of the construction of the permit in 1987 no further

construction shall be permitted which result in any structure on or directly above the existing officer your as shown on exhibit 1. the -- the exhibits are very similar to what we were shown. i don't think the plans are changed since 1987 i'm stuck the fact that no further construction shall be permitted resulting in any structure directly above and i just ken see how constructing an officer deck which necessary low involves, guard rails and thing this is stick up above the level of the officer is not in violation of this nsr. >> i think the key well is on the existing officer area. this project is per of this project it lowers the existing officer. the existing receive is no

longer there. it is lowering the roof and so the inteblt of the green light is it prevent structures being built on top of the existing receive yours that would be in vow of the appellates. this project lowers the officer. and it is and perhaps grant can architect for the project can speak. it was designed original plans did have a guard rail and know planning in discussions with planning they were of the opinion this was not consistent with the nsr. it was redesigned and those guard rails are no longer required. the as you can -- may be not.

so -- that -- that -- plan there -- you see sort of out line of where the existing officer area is. everything as part of this project will be below this existing officer area. and so there are no guard rails required. where hado you mean below. i'm not envision thanksgiving limp what do you mean below. this will show. can you show the -- over head. here is the existing roof it is built down recess third degree is the guard rithere are no guard rails required on top of that officer. it sunk down below the existing

officer area. so may be i'm missing something was there an entire room that was removed this is now being where this roof deck is proposed to be built. i believe this -- may be grant you want to -- talk about the design. we are using the attic portion of the roof and you are using the well of it to form the guard rail. >> the well of what? this would be where my spent this is the attic space is. we are using the walls to form the 42 inch guard rail the tip of my spent existing peek of the lower officer. >> okay. there used to be a room. >> an attic area. >> was an enclose the structure

in that space that is no long are there? dependses on definition of structure but it if you are home as a pitched roof the finished sealing and the area above is attic space it is in the habitable. why i'm not asking whether habitable or not, there was some amount of space there was part of the attic that was remove exclude is intended to be replaced with this deck? >> correct. >> okay. >> so -- the guard ris that are being built in the current plan, are they in any way, shape or form above where the former officer line was? no its not. >> okay.

how does the photo the appellate showed with the construction outside of their window how does this play this. is tht same area that is constructed or is this different or -- what can -- they showed a picture where there was a deck constructed outside of their windo that is that if not this? so -- well is a concern remodel project going on including replacing the windows that scaffolding from the on going remodel project, the decks are not being constructed yet than i don't have permits for the deck. why the forecast we saw is completely unrelated to the deck this we are. this is -- right. that is construction that is

going on for remodel permit that has been issued. why that was a bit misleading then. >> so -- can i clarify that. for a clarification sake to make our we are not misleading anybody. their window is approximately right here. and the construction worker was over this ridge area where we are proposing our roof. so when we create our resiszed roof deck, would be lower. they are standing on that peek now that would not be the condition when it is built. that was not be the condition. >> okay. >> i think that makes sense. and just it clarify, it looks from differentrous of the property there is kind of 2

levels of officer. one with a third i'm assuming third store and he part of the officer on a different section of the house on top of 2 stories. this is on the 3 story portion or 2 story portion? >> so the -- the officer that we talked about is the lower roof that is the third floor the 72 square foot and the upper highest roof that was the 42 square foot roof deck. there are 2. okay. i will pass it -- i will pass for now i might have more in rebuttal. thank you y. commissioner trasvina? >> thank you. and if i can understand i will ask about the proposed deck.

you are creating a deck 3 and a half feet below the current officer line, is that accurate. >> correct. >> and as it relates to the appellate's property and their family room, can people who are taller than 3 and a half feet see in to their property? >> if they are on the new deck? i mean it is the 3 and a half feet is guard rail height. you know dem penning how much taller you are you will be above that line. >> right. and -- people who are on that deck 3-1/2 feet below the current roof line can see in the

neighbor's property, correct? >> there is the possibility for that. there is a likelihood, right? i believe it is the edge of the officer deck is approximately 20 feet away from their building. why this helps. does the rest so -- that -- part of the deck that would be facing -- east? into the property. rather than west or toward the -- ocean? this is east. >> i'm trying to get a sense as to you want obviously a beautiful neighborhood and properties you want to have i deck they have a deck as i understand it. the purpose of the purpose of the deck for your clients is to

be up high. and to be able to look out presumable low toward the bay and toward the ocean. rather than toward the neighbor's property. correct? >> correct. >> is there what would be and -- you rescue noised people up on the future deck would see in the property and the family room, et cetera of the neighbors? correct? 20 feet away but they can see in. yes , i mean they would be able to see back i think -- yea it is setback more than 15 feet from the property line and their's is setback 5 feet that is you know normally a deck is rivered to be 5 feet away from the property

line had is 3 times the normal planning requirement. >> if you know, you may or may not have a reason to know perhaps your clients know, what would the, what view does the marseille's window have that the deck would interfere watch the deck would not interfere it is built belocality deck line. it is slightly reducing the impact to their vows. only impact to their vow would if somebody was standing there there would be a silhouette of a person but the deck itself is going to slightly improve their vow. >> okay. >> and would there be approximate any problem on your client's part to have that part

of the deck being constructed of materials that would provide privacy to the neighbors? i don't want to -- >> good evening. commissioners ryan patterson for the permit holders. i will add i'm closer to the homeowner they clarify there is no view from the niche's window in that direction they are not seeing the golden gate, et cetera . from the proposed deck it would electric to the golden gate no reason to turn and look in the niche's home. but for the question of screening, i think that is something we can discuss i'm guessing the appellates don't want additional height added the deck but you know if privacy is their concern, we could discuss that. that would mean adding some type of frosted glass or plants or something to provide privacy.

that is a room i understand is already visible from the street there is in the a real additional visibility created. i appreciate that, thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, you can be seated. we will hear from the planning department. >> good evening president swig and voip lopez and the board i'm tina tammy demming zoning administrator. 285 sea cliff a 3 story single familying dwelling in r hd and 40 height and bulk. construct in the then 48 within the eligible sea cliff historic district the property is a

historic resource. in 1988 part of the rerufor the parcel third story addition nsr was recorded on the property. this nsr limits future change that result in raising the height of the existing building. you heard i will go ahead and restate the nsr quote no further construction shall are per nitted where you will in structure or directly botch the existing roof area. here is a bird's eye vouft property. over head. typeset it is located on the southeast corner of sea cliff avenue. and the appellates the property to the east. that 275 sea cliff. the appellates are the marseilles reside at 275 and

believe the deck would change the area and violate the nsr. her is another photo of the subject property taken from the front. the property to the right is the property. and the property to the left is the appellate's. here is another photograph of subject property around the corner on the other side of sea cliff avenue. >> you heard from the appellate the -- representative, the marseilles with drew the request for vertical addition in 88 on the condition it be recorded. the more seal'smented to ensure the windows look negligent direction of 285 sea cliff would remain clear and unblocked. if there is future plans that would contradict the nsr the project would be subject to dr. dregzary review hearing before

planning commission. here is the another arial photograph of the property. you see the windows on the appellate's property. most concerned with. in may of 2022 the owners of 285 foiled a per nit to add 3 roof decks at the front, middle and the roar. the planner determined the new decks did in the comply with the nsr and that dr was required. in response, the applicant resubmitted revised plans in october of 22 showing removal of one of the deck and reduction in size and lowering of the 2 decks on the property. here is a side by side comparison with the original proposal, showing the 3 deck

front, middle, back and removal of the one at the back and reduction in size and massing of the 2 at the front and the middle. . as a result of the change no party of the new decks would protrude above and beyond the existing roof areas. both decks will be recessed and buried within the existing officer form of the building. as revised the project motes the planning code and no dr is required. i wanted to be clear the plans submitted as part of mr. williams appeal brief are of the original plans. in may and are not the revised plans that we saw. and approved. mr. williams also talked about the receive line changing. i want to claire fight nsr does in the say the roof line could not be changed the nsr states maintenance, repair and reconstruction is needed no raising the height of the

existing officer line or roof ridge should be allowed. the project does in the raise the height of the roof line or ridge. the roof line and ridge will remain the same some will be lowered part of the new deck construction. in sum row the project complies with planning code. the design guidelines. the secretary of the interior standardses and nsr. the 2 decks will not enlarge or expand in size or profile of the existing roof. they will not increase in height the roof line or the roof ridges. as such the department recommends you deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis the permit was properly issue said. >> next. president swig. >> a quick question. the recessing of the deck, how

far below the officer line is the floor of the deck? and -- related to safety and security issues and a guard rail, a fence, a whatever so that somebody does in the fall off the deck. is there going to be a guard rail or any other structure that is a safety requirement and again how -- how deep is the floor of the deck from i guess the officer line? is it 2 if he felt 4 feet. 6 feet? what is it? i can putum drawings and you have to see them in your packet from the project sponsor. . really it boils down to -- a roof deck is well to be stood

upon. and therefore if a looking at the 2 lovely children here, that are with us tonight. if those 2 lovely children walk out on the deck, where are they within the edge of the deck and what is the safety protection for those children or anybody else? >> i will put up an elevation. the top 3 series of photos or drawings of the front elevation. and the 3 in the bottom are the back elevation. ignore the back they removed. looking at the front you see 2 decks the roof 39 is there now and the new floor of the deck below that. i don't have a scale with me but

i, soup a couple of feet. and then as part of the response brief there is a cross section that is the same cross section that the architect put up earlier. . it shows -- the height of -- i don't know they call it a well or a railing. or the side of the inside part of the deck. 3 feet 6 inches meeting the minimum requirement for deck and dbi can confirm that as well. >> the only thing that would protrude above the deck would be a person? >> or a piece of furniture on the deck and more than 3-1/2 feet. >> yea. that's it >> thank you. >> commissioner trasvina?

>> thank you. i had a question regarding the 4 windows that its 2 part question one is as i read the settle am green light for making it 88. it says the parties agree that the 4 of the west wall windows will be clear. my question first is -- whether that -- agreement applied only to the addition in 88 and not anything today. and second, whether you can educate me on -- what impact this deck or the proposal has on upon keeping the 4 windose clear? >> thank you. that's a good question. i think it is our interpretation those still apply.

windows the 4 i think 6 would stay clear and unblocked that's what the settlement agreement says whether pertaining to the partial third story or the existing prosecute file of the husband we interpret it as the entire house. no change to the gifting 2 story portion of the building. and so this is why we were adamant when reviewing the original plans. any portion protrood beyond the file would violate ortrary to the nsr. genetics other question. that's helpful. thank you. the other question is as i started to read the file, i was getting the impression that the planning department either forgot or not aware of the nsr and at some point in the process

it was brought to the department's attention? is tht case or was it known all along and you have the department has locked at this decision with the nsr in minds from the start? >> thank you, no we knew about the nsr it is recorded part of the property it shows and up part of the planner's responsibility and job they would look through all those limitationless related that property. i believe what the reference might have meant in the appeal brief was that the time when the appellates reached out to the city, it was permit was in the supervisor who was not going to the one revowing the plans she was holding on the plans waiting for the assignment to be made to the planner. she was not going to say i know about the nsr.

she would say thank you for the informationil pass this to the assigned planner when the time come. >> thank you. >> thank you. president swig? anything further. thank you. one more. okay. vice president lopez has a question. ms. tammy. thank you. >> thank you. i was wondering if you could -- say a bit about how planning understands the difference with the ccnr and the nsr? i think there is a question in terms of the evidenceary weight for our decision and there is also a question how planning operationalizes the review.

nsr's are recorded often times with the help of the planning department or other agencies to limit certain use on the property or certain development on the property. the city is very much involved. when testimony come it nsr. with ccnr, that is different. the department of the city often times if in the almost all the time, would not be involved and they say you have a ccnr, they are old and say things that the city would in the agree with. so therefore, we would not be enforcing on those. sort of neighborhood --

decisions. jury room got t. not all nsr's are recorded. and not, available to the planners on each property. the once i know of are recorded part of the deed. the deed depilot who new come on and buys the property. why great. >> thank you. why thank you. welhear from the department of building inspection. >> good evening president wig special voip lopez. methodue greening with dbi tonight. the permit revision to an issued permit for remodel and seismic retrofit on add 2 new decks once this permit cleared planning, it was routed to dbi and engineer for plan review.

the application was approved and issued on november 7 issue 2022. i visited the site yesterday. trying to wrap my head around the project myself. the approved plans show the new roof deck went roof line. set down 3 foot 6 from the officer line come is 42 inches a required height of a guard rail. would not be required extensions of the guard rail. as of yesterday none of this work xhengzed there is work going on under the previous permit. based on planning interpretation of the nsrdbi believes this permit was approved proper low and complies dbi recommends the permit upheld. i'm available for questions you may have. >> thank you. i don't see questions we will

move on to public comment. anyone to provide public comment. raise your hand? 3 minutes. yes. i don't see hands raised. nobody here. we will move on to rebuttal. mr. williams. you have 3 minutes. >> thank you. steep williams on behalf of the marseilles. obviously, any construction is presented with result in a structure on the roof or boft existing officer, this ends up with structures on the officer. and mrs. tammy got it right the intention the parties ensurety windows would remain clear and unblocked. and if you go become to how this all came about it was a large construction project 35 years ago and exhibits 3 shows it. the buildings before the

construction. they had a wall of windows facing west directly at the ocean this is the vow they lost. and the prior project sponsor marked up the windows that are were clear and there are 4 here and this one up here is these 2 up here are supposed to be kept clear as well and part of the settlement agreement. calls out a dimension of 20 fet from this which i am no to the front wall. nothing built there just as nothing here because otherwise those windows are not kept completely clear. people stand on decks and put up winds screens plants, heaters and furniture on decks they would all prevents the windows from being clear which mistammy told you the intention the pers to keep the windows clear.

that's why in part this appeal should be granted. again, it takes the interpretation results in a nullifiying the prior agreement. and they snot have to fight this over again. the commissioners were correct and expressd that. further, the please, look at the hatch and sky light this is is a revision permit everything is on the table for the burden to look at. and architect's drawings themselves state that several objects and shows several boost existing roof a guard railway above the existing roof and state there is the hatch will be thing inches above the darn roof. i'm not making this up this is in the shown in elevations or the sections. and most of these architectural

plans are a mystery applied 3 times for decks than i knew violated the nsr and kept coming back. so -- you know, the letter and the spirit and the purpose is being violated. finally no deception this was a mock up. of the deck. put up by the project sponsors that's why we showed it. they put a board out to show the deck. why we have a question from commissioner eppler. going back to the slide remember exhibits 19 the roof hatch. i have a question with regards to that roof hatch. that is in the an exhibit in mine >> that is the one there. why part of their plans. section at roof hatch. so that -- is that the deck that is at the apex of the property

the top of the roof. >> i believe so. would that emped the vow from windows. >> i think it might impact the back window the back bedroom windows >> thank you. >> okay. thank you. i don't see commissioner trasvina? >> i'm a little troubled and struggling with you seem to be -- side miss tammy saying yes the unblocked 4 windows agreed upon in 88 applies to this property. . this proposal. and at least as i understand her, miss tammy is saying that those windows are still unobstructed you are saying they are obstructed.

had are they obstructed by. activity this is go on decks. there they are if you love privacy we will put up a winds screen that will block the vow of the ocean the folks still have. they were guaranteed to keep with the bargain struck by the formy zoning administrator 35 years ago. he bargained this thing. . and that's what we are looking at is the all the activity this is go on a deck. is what the obstructions will be. and you know no one can. yop where upon shill find this support for b activities are includes in kruck. these are on the roof. they are roof decks if you go become to the language of the nsr it is 2 part.

on or over. and these are on. plus once you read in the settle am green light this should be the end the windows will in the be clear of activity this is go on. that was the intention the parties. we should read the 88 agreement equating activities with structures and construction? >> well, in the necessary low saying have you to e equal the there will be obstructions that will block those windows that were supposed to remain clear in the language of the agreement. if i can ask it would not be your cline's position this any privacy additions would help?

>> that would block the vow. >> so, that sounds like. that's the problem. i suppose what if it they are passed i suppose when we want is prohibiting winds screens issue pleasant and heaters you know. tall objects this might be e rektod a deck that will block the view. my interest is not the vow it is the privacy to the neighbors. they upon shown that to the picture would, peer anybody standing there could look in the computer room or the family room of your clients. >> that's correct. and also sounds like you don't have anything that would suggestion that would solve this

problem. that's why there were pezed to be no decks there. why thank you y. okay. thank you welhear from the permit holder. good evening ryan patterson for permit holders. i wanted to independent it a now thing and clarify and set the record straight. if i can use the over head, pleas. in is the detail mr. williams showed you he neglected to add the language acided by dbi that says, roof remain as is guard

rail. sorry. mall text here. officer shall serve as guard rino guard rail extending above existing roof line. you see better the condition we are talking about from a different page he did not show you. that is a condition of approval. when added to the approved plans. again if we look at 83 where are 1 you see to the extent that this deck is carved out and sunk down in the roof. nothing is extending above the existing roof line no structure is added and there is one question in the case that is, per length nsr whether any structure is on or directly above the existing officer yours the answer is, no. there is the question of whether

people will stand on a deck and be visibility. people are not a structure. i want to clarify these are small decks, talking about may be 2 people stands there at a time they are not party decks there is in the room for significant can furniture my client said they have no intension of putting tall furniture on the decks they are not trying to be bad neighbors the contrary. dbi representative upon confirm the the safety requirements for fall restraints were met. and i want to try to clarify when we are talking about here. if you imagine in the floor here the grounds is the existing officer line we are talking digging excavate and sinking the deck down in the grounds. we are not talking about putting anything on the roof. we are under the roof.

and the language that miss williams said is not in the nsr this language does in the exist in the nsr this is in the private settlement agreement not per tin to this issue. and as the deputy city attorney welcome, condition firmed that is a private agreement. like the hoa not the nsr the city is party to. it is not at issue in this case and it is not enforceable by the city even if it were. thank you very much for your time. happy to answer questions. >> i don't see questions we will hear from planning. >> tin tammy for planning again. i don't have much to add, except this i want to mention is is

there or any winds screens more than likely it would prosecute tude beyond the area and contradict the ns r&d r would be required unless the parties both parties do agree in write to modify the language in the nsr employmented to kinds of put that out there. can you confirm than i are enforceable parts of the plan is this i dbi question? i was reviewing the plans and acknowledge that is included in the plans. >> and that says enforceable will be part of the over all process. i will ask mr. green.

thank you. >> thank you. we'll hear from dbi. >> commissioner eppler to your point yes it is part of the approved plan and enforceable and the reason they use the roof hatch they asked so they would not have to put a penthouse above the officer and says it is in the to exceed 36 inches above the floor of the roof deck that would be below the 42 inches of the existing roof line. any other questions. president swig. >> to super clear. so if we were to denight appeal and those decks were built and the appellate found sorry and the project sponsor the permit

holder in real life, i asked this question grownup 3 blocks away from the site and going back to live there as a result for another 20 yers i know the area well. when they built that deck and finds that 364 days a year the winds blows like hell and you can't use the deck and want a wind screen they will not be able to. correct. why a winds screen would require a building permit and the nsr would kick in and told, no they can't build it, is this trough. >> correct. >> thank you. joy don't see further questions commissioners this matter is submitted. >> commissioners, commissioner lopez questions, comments? >> yea. i think from where i sit this looks like a creative work

around. the nsr but not a violation of the nsr. you know i think the way the nsr was drafted it its irrelevant focus on the profile of the building. and the structure. it is not a prohibition on absolute height of any activities or -- you know -- yea. it is just -- i agree with the permit holder interpretation of -- the nsr and the project being within it is requirements. yea. like i think approximate the comments from mr. green are telling he has not seen anything like it. and i think it is a creative

solution. we seen that with you know other types of construction like the camel back houses of new orleans and looks like we are seeing something innovation with respect to the requirement in this case i'm inclineed deny the appeal. mr. trasvina. >> thank you, president swig. i am per waded by the departmenty handling of the matter and dealing with, lot of difficult issues that go back. interpretations andant are analysis did not come through in the original reading of the materials. the extent of -- the work that planning and dbi it don this. presentations tonight as well as from the parties persuades me that this is in the a violation

of the agreement and the appeal should be denied. i tends to agree with my fellow commissioners. based on the written materials this were submitted. i had a hard time seeing my way around how this was per missable i did not have a clear understanding of what was being proposed and i'm not a master plan reader. so once it was hone to me what was done, i tends to agree with vice president lopez 'characterization of the solution as creative. i think it is a creative solution. i having looked at the plans, would i come up with this solution. no , i would not but i'm not an architect. i'm an attorney i read contracts and you know it is language -- and the plain language of things

here but having viewed the nsr through the plans the ns r clear does in the forbid this. so i am also inclineed deny the appeal. thank you. i agree with my fellow commissioners. the nsr was designed to it is miscellaneousing base designed to prevents the envelope from increasing in the building envelope is decreasing. in certain ways and while that may organizationally being several people the front deck can hold several people on the deck this may be perpendicular to vow of a window that is there and that may be disturbing but not what it was intended regulate. in the spirit of move

thanksgiving i must have we deny and uphold the permit on the basis was properly issued. >> thank you for this motion. i say the private agreement portion that was noted here is not in our jurisdiction. and the private agreement if thisments to be discussed can be a civil situation. but we are dealing with the permit. and we have a motion and would you like. >> okay a motion from commissioner eppler to deny and uphold the permit base i it was properly issued. vice president lopez. >> aye >> trasvina. >> aye >> lemberg. aye >> president swig >> aye >> we are moving on to item 5 appeal 23-0004 jim reid versus dbi and planning approval.

3420 to 3424, 16th. appealing the issuance to jay davidson of an at rigz permit. modify lower unit 3424, 16th remove window in bay and replace with a door to allow access to rear yard. a lawnedary area and door kitchen area permit 230123 where are sick 0 for you we will hear from the appellate first. mr. davedson are you going to have danielle burko representing to you start. >> mr. reid is the appellate but i'm not speaking i'm watching. >> i'm sorry, yes. mr. reid? please approach you have 7 minutes to address the board. thank you.

>> first of all i like to thank your staff alex and july than i were fabulous. i'm grateful for how much they helped me. my landlord had confusion over my history as a licensed condition transactor. got my license in july 1978, 44 years ago when i move in the the neglected flat in 2004 i had 26 year's experience as a listened condition transactor. i have a general condition transactor electric and plumbing

licenses and i hire journeymachine plumbers to do the work on my first notice in the flat i slept in the formal dining room off the kitchen at the back. mr. o'neil say its is a living room, not true it is a lifely dining room with painted wood paneling which a carpenter like myself loves. it has been my bedroom for all this time. my landlord replaced the window before i move in the without benefit of planning approval or permits. my landlord agreed i would live there clone issue pain and do the stuff i had in wash and dry and connected it to the gas and electric on laundzary porch 3 units had the benefit of that. susan has a laundzary poach of her phone a license said

condition tractor, yes, you need a permit as the property owner it is your responsibility but i can get it for you. i remodeled the entire building. they decided not it get permit on the work i was degree in keep width dear they put in with you a permit. okay. so i set up the small washer and dryer in the back affordability of my same small door and wrapped the laundz real room in sheet rock and a third sheet with vinyl sounds proofing so i would not hear it. the stacked dryer were inside my flat and the area was in the part of a common your. i removed the back door to the stair so my landlords would benefit from using landry.

begin nothing may of 20 where are 7 i began remodeling jay and susan's unit. could you tell mow when i have 2 minutes i have a solution. thank you. >> i'm dyslexic and i have a difficult time reading i turn everything to mp3's and listen to temperature pausing time for you. or i'm deaf. pause the time. yes, could you. >> thank you i appreciate that.

which was sdpn hafs going to be done next. let's see. i are too much to actual and not enough time. so for the last 3 years -- be [interference] [audio interference]. in 2020, 3 years ago today. behind my back my 2 land lords to being rent from legal subtenants broaching a 16 year rental grem i had with susan and

jay. they enabled my 2 male subattentives to breech rent board approved contracts. this began 3 years of haaresment and ended with where we are today my landlords someone looked at the place. removed the washer and driveway are 6 months ago and when i discovered they had no plans to replace it i butt my own wash exert driveway and when they saw me bring it in they had the lawyer say they would e vict mow ficonnected it. and there are 2 locations in the unit i could have connected i washer and dryer each time i made an appointment they threatened me with eviction if i connected it. okay. i believe in the my land lords

are using the dbi to harass a tenant. and i have a slide here. 2 minute warning for you. thank you. gi has a wold door no fire rating. this is my unit where i have no door at all i took the door off

so my landlords can come in and use the wash and dryer the proposal is that my lands lords rather than blocking our exit through this area in the backyard and force my female subattentives to come through my bedroom to get to the laundry the landlord put in a fire door and that the -- we allow the building department to apply the law uniformly across the building where everyone will put in a fire door. i'm a belling contractor and not working but i would be theme pay for a steel fire door here so that my unit is protected with an hour fire wall. if you look at the 2 landlords they have no fire wall. i don't understand yet building department i do. my landlords want the building

department. haarey hartace me i ask you consider denying the permit unless they want to put in fire dpoors we all i would be fine with that. because -- the stairway going down has all i have lalgzs no hand rails. and realist bad stairs and if the stairs burned they would go in all 3 units. thank you. >> thank you a question from commissioner lemberg. thank you. i have a few questions. number one, the property ordinance brief sites that there will be access from your unit for you and room mates to the new proposed laundry room in the

through i different path. >> had is correct. actually we are to go out our front door and into a locked alley with a gate and the key does not work well. and there is 3 more doors to go to to get there. we have to do this in the rain. so at the moment, we for the last what 18 years, we simple low gone in our kitchen and went in an alcove i built and the original was mine and imented replace it and within the affordability of my unit it is not in other common your. >> okay. next question. where is this new laundry room they are proposing to build? it is not clear >> the same place. they are simple low putting the wash and dryer back where it

was. and they bought a washing machine that was huge and blocked the door. the one i did, did not block the door i could vent what i have and will not block the door. >> okay. thank you. why i had another question. i forget. i will ask in rebuttal. >> thank you, can you be seated. we will hear from the permit holder mr. davidson. president wig and vice president

lopez. and commissioners this is the only property is that tha susan and i own we are retoired first grade teachers in san francisco. we have been resident ordinance of the building since we purchased it 45 years ago in 1977. my domestic partner living with mow on the premesis since 2018 and serving the building manager the last year. we support all regulations that ensure fair treatment for all renters e approximately seniors as we ourselves are seniors. we are sorry that the permitted solution to this problem involved him filling the door from the appellate's kitchen to the laundz row your. we see if from his come plain that this is not a solution that

he likes. we are sorry that upper time we come up with a solution he does in the like, he personalizes it and says this we are harassing him and presents these solutions and wagzs to other people in a way he says we are trying to force him out of his home. we are not trying to force him out of his home. we are bodies people with full and productive lives have more to do with our time than find ways to haace anybody this includes the appellate. it is unfortunate he sees this this way, and have no control over his perceptions we reminds him and the commissioners that locating the washer and dryer where they are and installing the door where his solutions

when he remodeled the building in 2004 the situation we find ourselves in is the direct result of his actions. but he does not see that. we would like the board of appeals to understands that there is absolutely no other place on the premesis where a wash and driveway are can be accessible to everyone who lives in the building. this is our only solution. by allowing the modifications which we were granted this permit we be in the position to continue to maintain the wash exert driveway are on the premesis at no cost to the appellate and his roommates. tell continue to be free and it is a lot closer than any laundry mat. the washer and dryer we reminds

him they are not housing surface. we are under no obligation to continue to allow the appellate and his roommates to use them but doing so as a convenience that because they have been accessible to everyone in the building since than i were install in the twop 004. yes, it is trough that the current wash and driveway are are birth than the original ones. they block part of the door that the original ones did not block when the african-american ones gave out and needed to buy a new wash exert dryer they were all being made much big are than they used to be and no other option available. >> thank you. you finished >> yes. why thank you we have a question from commissioner lemberg. >> thank you. i have a couple questions.

first one is regarding the changes that were made to the property in twop 004. the way the appellate say its is this you as the property owner approved of those changes back in 200 power is that true or not true? >> approved the changes meaning the >> the plans his proposed @rigzs. 2004 i was admit faes core in west africa i was in the there susan it is building per in was. there and we were unaware of anything regarding permits. the people who lived in this unit when we purchase in the 1977 lived there for 27 years. we had no work or anything doing with permits. we were -- ignorant about the process. >> my question is not about

permits whether you knew of the work knew of and, proved of the w this he was. >> we did. >> yes why are you make thanksgiving change now. what prompted this change in the landry room location. in the referred i don't see complaints i don't see anything going on so why make this change now? >> there have been problems with the appeal over the last couple of years and we had to retain a lawyer to help us get through some of the problems. our lawyer suggested to us that because the appellate does in the hold a lease or any rental agreement with us, he wanted to credit an upon rent will agreement but before hoe did this he want today have the

building inspected to make sure that there were no code violations. so -- we called in the departments to inspect the building that's had it came it light that the problems existed. why we are trying to correct the problems that existed so this we can get everything corrected and then move to getting a rental agreement that the appellate will sign >> okay. i want to stay away from the land lord tenant disputes that is not in our jurisdiction. and the sounds like you have retained counsel on that i want to focus on the this change. i guess a follow up question to that is are there other changes being proposed to the property

that are result of this inspection this you mentioned? no. infilling the door. permitting the wash and dryer in the first place they did not have a permit and it it is retroactive low permitting the back door that was -- part of the exhibit and part of my brief i submitted showing where there was a door in what used to be the middle window. we are -- going back allowing that retroactively. okay. we hear from the planning departmentful 3424, 16th is a 3

story 3 unit building in the rto residential transit oriented zoning district. constructed in 1996 the property is in the a historic resource. the permit is to make modification to the existing unit at lower level a legalizing the replace am of a river roar window to a door. no other scope of work will trig are planning review. seeing the window to door change is compliant with the planning code it was approved over counter by planning staff on january 24 of 23. i will put up an over head picture. this is the same in your brief. that's the new door or

legalization of the door that used to be where no window used to be. i understand the appellate is the tenant resiing hoe is concerned about changes on interior limiting access to his yard. this is in the a planning code issue i will defer to dbi for their insight. and recommendation for the permit. >> thank you. i don't see questions now hear from dbi. good evening again matthew grown remming department of building inspection. so what i could tell there is a now wash exert driveway are installd and learning are than before. it is going it block the exit

door if you electric at this -- so, this door here leads to the exit path and obviously it is heard to roach there. if you leave this size wash and driveway are system you have to move the dear or close it and proviedz an extra door. what they propose is it is door at the rear of the bail be the being second exit oust unit. that is labeled as a living room the appellate is using it as a bedroom so -- that is the issue there. is this an almost or a bedroom the plans label it a living room which is fine for an exit path you should not exit through a bedroom to get to the exit path.

i don't know what there is no active notice of violation against this property i would say if there was an inspection by san francisco housing inspektdor they would right a notice saying this is not accessible i believe that is the purpose of this building permit. as we said before with -- this the room of the bay window is labeled as a living room. we don't enforce the use of the unit by the occupants. and obviously it is using as a bedroom. not approved as a bedroom but natha is not something we would enforce. we prefer they were not sleeping there. the plans are up to code. i have i do suspect that building is in the used as labeled on the plans with

regards to that i can't say i support this building permit but i understand when than i are trying to dom i than is wishy washy i'm available near questions you may have >> thank you we have questions from president swig, trs vina and lemberg. >> just a little wishy washy. we had a case on 18th avenue and geary. and -- it was neeshth of you were around the discussion was around the use of room that is in the as they were labeled. i can't recall the what we found because witness a case left us i can remember the case but not remember the resolution but you know what are the issues and then may be a tina question.

as opposed to yourself. i have questions for you the same. what about that? i think this i recall this in this case, a there was a stairway involved. redeploy am of the use of it. and -- i think the appellate was saying, wait a minute that will require entry into the living room i'm using as a bedroom what exactly sets the prosecutical and the priority. sets the guidance from you all. as to -- things like this. . clearly access has been access has been and will continuing to breached. you can't have a door like this. it does not pass you have to have an exit path that is the

law. and -- so, where -- where is the prosecute col, when triggers what and what do you have to do and does this have impact whether or not somebody is using labeled as a lorm other thanning diej room or family room as a bedroom? . the architect would design plans for the building, as tinldzed ouz. we don't police daily activities it would be impublic and improject cal. but you say if you have an exit has to be clear and unobstructed you kent have i look blocking the exit i would say that if they are using the living room for sleeping the appellate puts a look on the door that is presented. we look at the physical building you can't have a look in an exit path.

how they use that room unenforceable we can't enforce this. we look at the physical building. if the exit door is too small that is a problem if blocked this is a problem. if there is a look, that's a problem. somebody using a room not intended to, that's manage we can enforce. the protocol is the priority is the safety and security. if it requires an exit pregnant this is the priority does not merit what the room is used for or anything else you gotta have a clear path for safety and security >> correct >> okay. it was eluded to. so00 autotestimony from the appellate was that well, they wentow and got inspection and it was and this triggered all the stuff. but -- then we heard from the

permit holder this in fact that it was from i'm getting confouzed from the housing authority or not from dbi. when happens but i know wham it was. appellates said there were issues that are a problem in the building and i think we heard from the permit holder that they asked for the city for an inspection which -- i assume from dbi and you said this it was from the housing authority or not from dbi. what happens for guest that. whens when dbi guess to the site and potential low finds other -- issues and potential notices of violation. will that impact the -- standing of this permiteen if we -- if we

denotice appeal? whyil clarify part of dbi and housing inspection services to inspect multieye unit bell and respond to complaints this . is 3 unit building exclude be under routine inspections by housing inspections the inspection than i are talking about is a private inspector. who was a housing inspector in the past hoe is my supervisor years ago. sorry i lost train of thank you if than i saw a violation it would in the impact this. my concern with all this is that -- that -- there was conjecture the fire wall was not

sufficient and a fire hazzard and conjecture on other issues and we know one issue this the primary issue we are talking about relocation of the door and that is clear. ure gotta have access for safety and security reasons. but in the process of the process of -- of00 autoconstruction and when dbi enters the building if they find other violations motive there be a domino affect we change the parameter of the improve am. the appellate was mentioning the fire doors special other unit dids not have one. this would be fire rated wall removing the door next to the wash and dryer. is because it will be by today's codes the buildingly was will built in a different time.

i think over 100 years ago. when you use today's code the area under construction had has to be built to today's code. >> others are grand fathered. >> unless they do workup there than up gridded to todayy code. this clarifies what i was looking for. commissioner trasvina. >> thank you, president swig i have i hope i minor quick question this is, is the problem with the door the obstruction or the problem with the door the size? or any method of construction? to my eyes the problem is the size of the wash exert dry are blocking access. the different wish and driveway are that door would be fine except for the issue of blocking. >> um -- well i'm have not been onity zoo.

i don't see i don't know how dheep is whether a washing and driveway are could fit in that space if protruding in the opening of the door, it is a problem. in together they are a problem. correct whether but you leave open the possibility the wish exert driveway are could be another somewhere this would fit better this would leave the door without being a problem? >> possible. >> and the door has to be unlocked to be per missable. >> can't be locked from interior but the exterior. someone inside the unit does in the need a co or special knowledge to get out. if you are visiting you don't know huto getow have you a door. we know how to prit a door.

>> thank you. commissioner lemberg i'm not sure i have a question. my impression is this this very small room usedas an a laundry room for the last 20 year -- sorry i'm -- struggling with the visual aspect of this a bit if we are looking at the photo that has the washer and driveway are and the door to the left this door to the left goes to the interior, is this correct?

okay. is tht door that is noncompliant or the door to the outside? this is the door not compliant. okay. is there a reason that door account not be moved a few inches so it is in the blocked by the wash exert dryer? >> with you seeing a plan of what the kitchen looks like or where the door goes to? i don't have knowledge of the site to say is that door could be moved or not. property owner might. better question for you mr. green. is this the only solution that would work for this project? to get the property up to code in there is always 100

solutions. i could not say this is the only solution. thank you. >> i might have have a better question later. >> sorry. >> thank you. we ever must having on to public comment anyone to provide public ment on this merit. raise your hand. is there anyone on zoom? i don't see any hands raised. we will move on to rebuttal. hear from mr. reid first. you have 3 minutes. >> thank you. >> i believe mr. davidson owns the conditionaledo in oak land susan on the top floor has a huge lawned row nowhere is separated from her kitchen with a door and has a wash and driveway are up well and they could easily make that a wash and dry are room for the entire building, like my unit had been

wash exert driveway are room for the building for 20 years or 19 years. susan could take over this responsibility. what else? i am a building contractor and people pay mow to come up with creative solution there is is a kitchen window 2 kitchen window in my watch and one could easily be turned in a door going in the backyard. there one solution. i have been using the room for 19 years as a bedroom and if it can't be a bedroom then i have nowhere to live. >> what else. the building was built in the 1930's not did manage in 96 that they got a rewhatever. might be all i have to say.

i -- there are other solutions. there is a solution to put the fire door and -- put an additional door or i could leave my bedroom unlocked if there were a fire my roommates could come in my room there is just i never lived in i accomplice i did in the trust my recommend mate and never had an electric on my bedroom and at the mobile home i have this cute dog look it is beautiful that is just a passage look. my roommates can come in any time and we have an agreement in our room mate agreement that we don't look dpoors that we are responsible to knock on any closed door and be invite in the first or we don't come in. so -- i think i would pay to turn a kitchen window to a door so we have direct access to our

wash and dryer and i have a wash and driveway are which is smaller and i know how to [inaudible]. so -- i think that might be all i have to say and so i foal like dbi is being used and they had dmam my house 4 times looking for problem and final low found one. but over the period of you know 10 or 15 years well were inspections where an inspektdor went through the become yard saw the wash exert dryer and thought next of it. why a question from commissioner trasvina for you, mr. reid? i hear from you, legality of ideas. about how you could how and the owner could resolve this problem. in light of everything you said

today and whatever circumstances exist in the building community, could you fer see and if so how long would it take for and you would owner to come up with an acceptable solution to bothed of snuff >> if i paid for it -- they let me do everything in the flat i paid for i put 100 thousand dollars in my rental unit because i do this. because i love where i live and so they let mow spends within00 thousand dollars i have the nicest in the in the buildingly better then and there susan or jay and i remodeled their flats and they would prebl allow mow to do anything they might not if i paid for it. >> so do you think if you and the owner had a mont to come up

with an idea you could come become in >> sure. where thank you. we will hear from mr. davidson. you have 3 minutes. my understanding this the building was built in 1904. there is in the a wish and driare at the back of susan's unit there is a washing machine. it was an old washing machine when we bought the build nothing 1977 and it still there. this it is what we are dealing with. and as for put nothing i different wish exert dryer, i have been to many appliance stores looking for washers and drivewayers that were not as deep as the ones there now. and i was not able to finds one. . all i have to say.

thank you. from commissioner trasvina i pose the same question i pezed mr. reid given the number of ideas this you heard from him tonight and perhaps some of your own your list is shorter then and there his list. given all the circumstances do you think that there are any al attorney tifs acceptable and how long for you both to come up if there were any. >> i don't think there would be. he tucks about removing i window in the kitchen. and this would be a window replaced with a door that would lead out to the back deck. i don't see how that is a solution. e approximately when we think about the possibility that susan or i might one day if he moves

out move down to lessen the steps we have to walk and that's not a solution we would be looking for. i don't know there would be another solution. >> thank you. >> thank you. can be seated. now hear from the planning department. anything further? >> tina tammy from planingly. i will try to walk you through this a bit more. so is the existing conditionful kitchen, living room and the window that was the door with the permit. i believe this is where the washer and dryer is located and the door where you see in the photograph as part of your

brief. the principle is it close off that door, and make it a solid wall. the window that the appellate is referring to is this window. in the kitchen this he is possible low consider turning into a door. so that -- his door in his room is in the only door to the yard. that's all i have. show this information on the over head. >> >> thank you. any questions? >> okay. i don't see any we will hear from dbi. i will say i'm sympatheting toilet appellate and believe the building permit is code come mroint and approved properly.

thank you. >> thank you i see the average for the permit holder raised his time the permit holder time elapsed. commissioners this merit has been. i'm here for questions. >> i'm sorry. >> he is here for questions. >> for when? >> any questions. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you. i'm available for questions. why thank you. commissioners the merit is submitted. commissioner lemberg you get. >> i did -- i liked where commissioner trasvina's head was going. there is a better solution here that i would in the necessary low be willing to grant the

appeal based on what is before us. but i feel like -- not a lot of thought has gone into this project. and i foal like there may be a much better solution than the one that is being proposed. so -- kind of going long what commissioner trasvina said as to proposal of a -- continuance to allow party tologist come to an agreement. might be the best outcome here. i would say if i had the vote i would vote to deny it but i foal is better idea to allow the appellate who is about this a language term tenant and i general contractor and the property owner who is allowed the appellate to make significant improve ams over the years time to talk and see if there is not a better solution

to the tenant laundry situation. it is in the within our purvow to intrefr with the landlord tenant press this is civil the rent board and court vs jurisdiction over we do not. but that said, i feel like some of the potential better solutions might be a partial solution to some of those issues as well. and it is within our purhave you to guarantee a continuance to a luthe parties time to talk. any noughts. are you consistent with your view. >> i am consistent with my point of view that i believe there is further w this could be done.

whether this is -- our role i look to president swig for guidance having been here and our president. but i would i given the situation of people here being in that belling for a long time and planning to be there for i long time i hope without impezing it they would take the opportunity to try to find a may be not creative solution. but a solution that would better address their future with the building. >> commissioner eppler? any comments? i agree with my fellow commissioners said. i don't see you know if came to a vote i don't see a way to deny or a way to grant the appeal but

i think this this it is a wagz where a bit more time may do the parties good. i think reading the tv it is looks like abcents those considerations a denial would be in order. i would i think given fact this -- it does look like the parties have lived together for i long time. and you know regardless of any outcome tonight or in the future, board of appeals hearing, you -- continue to live

together. you know i think we suggest that you try to come together in a spirit of partnership. you know and i don't know if you know clear the appellate has presented previous speaker noted air long list of solutions. i don't know if looking for alternative washer dry are units has been included in that list that is one that come up to me. but -- yes. i do think this seems like a lot of work to get upon around a couple inches of projection in a door way. that's -- how i see it. upon even though under the 4 corners of the permit, and i

also note even you know mr. green's reaction is -- worthy of note to me because it is not one that the dbi usually expresses this is technically there but it is not. you know it is in the kinds of recommended. i think that is left an impression of mow and i think this there is an easier more straightforward solution. so we are essential low you know -- suggest thanksgiving you take this time to really clearly, there is a dispute outside of the permit going on. but we suggest that you try to take this time to prop the problem in partnership and try

to work it out. >> permit was properly issued was the permit proper low issued. yes, it was. is it our role to get involved in a land lord tenant issue? the proper permit was proper level issued. and my spirit and intention would be to make them all understand that they will live together in pes and harmony butt permit was properly issued and therefore the appeal should be denied. that would be my straightforward cold hearted you know strit by guide lines. let me tell you why i stand by

that my experience with precedent setting. if we do this, then every time we have something like this, which is i got a better idea and he or he or whom ever is doing it all wrong. i think that we should you should let us talk about it long exert -- and then we are because you did it for them. just think in terms of the precedent this one sets when for all the right reasons i'm not denying infengzs or per or the ideal wagz and people should live in peace and you can do a good job if you revisit. but when the permit was proper low issued. the permit should being appeal

denied and also the precedent piece which is -- next week someone will wuk in and said you did it for them you gotta do it for us. i leave you with that. and you can make a motion to continue probably going to decent. i think the permit was proper low issue exclude pole should be denied. that's where i am. you do what you want. >> and i'm prepared to lose. >> as i stated earlier. the first direction i electric is to you president swig because you have as our president and the most senior member here the importance to be able to take in account people's intentions my questions was equal low to both parties do you think there are all public alternatives. if so how long will it take. i asked both of them. mr. reid had a number of ideas.

and i time frame. the property owner did in the feel the same way. while will one hand machine might say better for people to make the decisions by themselves, on the other hnltdz are everwe have a role and the city charterer and statute to decide. i had hoped perhaps even if we decide tonight upon -- that the as neighbors and people long standing toys to each other they could work this out subsequent to our action. but given your video president swig i will not make a motion to continue. and you purwaded mow for this board we had not we should in the continue and decide this matter tonight.

respectfully, i disagree with president swig's version of upon events. we continue cases like this fir low regular low in routinely the difference with this case and others there is a landlord tenant dispute. we routinely continue cases that may be we would deny otherwise. but we see an opening for the parties to come to a better agreement and we continue typeset to allow those parties time to come to an agreement exit don't see the difference between this merit before us tonight and probably a dozen other cases that we continued since i joined the board last july i don't seat difference. this is in the what i will loyal cross the tracks for.

and when i am mindsful of, a couple things. one -- are we perpetuating in a legal situation safety and security issue there is a blocked door way. i will let this city authorities who are opinion for up holes the issues deal with this. 2, are we causing harm to the property owner, prebl not the condition existed for, while. there is no duress or no -- we are not taking away a right or kazing so -- you want to move to hear this at our next meeting this is -- not going to brick my heart i'm calling to your attention the permit was properly issued. that's all. and i probably will decent on for this reason i will not take

it personal leave. believe me. and -- also i like the advice of mr. green since you -- said the permit was properly issued that would be the grounds on which we would deny the appeal. are we doing something legally wrong or is this a reasonable something this would put you as dbi at risk or across approximate move negligent opposite direction of any compliance or legal precedent. if we continue for tw weeks. no there is no notice of violation or code enforce am case at this moment. all we do is probably piss off a building owner. i'm sorry if we do this.

but -- and bending over backward and being fair it a tenant and hearing -- we did it in i major case 2 weeks ago we didn't have we $do this regularly listen to the constituency and use our ears and hearts and give benefit of the dub this would be consistent in this spirit. so still veet against it but this doesn't -- that is neither here nor there i think the issue so if tht direction which we will probably go the next question is, i guess, is, well the parties >> we have 2 options march 15 in 2 weeks or april 12 which is i bit, ways we canseled the march

22nd. no. 4 appeals are related we have 6 total 4 are related. why and simple low what will help on march 15th if we delay it to that is that both parties get 3 millions we am pose the question and have the parties met. does they decide yes or no. and if the answer was no then we are become to this discussion here tonight. and if they say, yes, it makes for greener pasteurs and sunny skois and a happy reconciliation. you want to allow them to submit further briefing. >> i think any submission would have to do specifically with the revision of a plan that would show us we moved this door from point ato point b and gone over

this with dbi and they say, this will probably pass muster and -- move from there. >> okay. so one page or 3 page could say we met 5 times and could in the agree y. one page. and if there it is agreement, a description in the form of a rough plan which has been reviewed with dbi for their >> okay that would be due the thursday prior to the hearing by 4. . 30. so do we have a motion? >> i would just add i don't think march 15th is tim for them to do much of anything. especially because that briefing can due the thursday before 10 days from you in. 12th is find. i don't care. >> if -- there is in grievous harm done to the building owner.

the -- situation has been the way it has been. there is no notice of violation therefore there is in sense of urgency and. >> check with the parties are you visible on april 12 on come become? the board is going in the direction they want you to try to w out the solution if not this is okay, too. i have a question. >> where related to the rescheduleingly? no related to a solution. >> president swig. >> sure. >> my question is would we be allowed to keep the nonconforming door the way it is now because if we keep that door we have a solution. >> that is a dbi question not us question. why that is why dbi exists. does not sound like it. >> okay. you are both available april 12. okay. do we have a motion. >> i move to continue this

matter to april 12 as the parties can attempt to come to an agreement on an alternative solution and with the participation of dbi in that as well. why okay. on that motion vice president lopez >> aye >> commissioner trasvina >> aye >> commissioner eppler. >> aye >> president swig >> in. that carries 4-between is continued to april 12. you heard you can submit a one page double spaced brief out lining what you agreed it or didn't when your efforts were do you by 4. . 30 the thursday prior you can call and e mail if you have question and w with d bi. thank you very much. this concludes the hearing. why thank you, everybody. have a good night.

>> who doesn't love cable cars? charging emissions and we're free which we're proud of you know, it's not much free left in the world anymore so we managed to do that through donations and through our gift shops. you got a real look and real appreciation of what early transit systems are like. this was the transit of the day from about 1875 to about 1893 or

later, you know. cable car museum is free, come on in. take a day. come down. rediscover the city. you can spend as time you want and you don't have to make reservations and it's important to be free because we want them to develop a love for cable cars so they do continue to support whether they live here or other places and people come in and say, yes, i have passed by and heard of this and never come in and they always enjoy themselves. people love cable cars and there's none left in the world so if you want to ride a cable car, you've got to come to san francisco. that what makes the city. without the cable cars, you lose part of that, you know, because people who come here and they love it and they love the history ask they can ride a cable car that has been running since 1888 or 1889. wow! that's something. can't do that with other historical museums. rarely, have i run into anybody from outside who didn't come in and didn't feel better from knowing something about the city. it's a

true experience you'll remember. i hope they walk away with a greater appreciation for the history, with the mechanics with people are fascinated by the winding machine and i hope the appreciation, which is a part of our mission and these young kids will appreciate cable cars and the ones who live here and other places, they can make sure there will always be cable cars in san francisco because once they are gone, they are gone. it's the heartbeat of san francisco that founded the cable and the slot and without the cable cars, yeah, we would lose something in san francisco. we would lose part of its heart and soul. it wouldn't be san francisco without cable cars. [bell ringing]

>> regular meeting of the sfmta and board of directors to order. >> staff and the public this is in hybrid format in person at city hall room 400 broadcast live on sfgovtv and phone. we welcome public participation. for public comment we'll take in person and remote. begin with in person. and move to remote. the number to use is 415-655-0001. access code: 2496 549 6929 ##. dial star 3 enter the speaker line. you will have 2 minutes to provide comment. speak clearly, in a quiet location approximate turn off