green building inspector with the department of building inspection. the board meeting guidelines are as follows the board request that you turn off for silence all phones and other electronic devices so they will not disturb the proceedings, no eating or drinking in the hearing room. the board's rules of presentation as follows. we only have two cases that have been previously that have previously been heard for item number four. the parties will be given two minutes each and no rebuttal, and for item five. the

parties will be given three minutes each with no rebuttal. members of the public were not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. mr long way our legal assistant will give you a verbal warning 30 seconds before your time is up. four votes are required to grant an appeal or to modify a permit or determination. if you have any questions about requesting a re hearing the board rules we're hearing schedules, please email board staff at board of appeals at sf gov .org now. public access and participation are of paramount importance to the board s f g tv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live and we will have the ability to receive public comment for each item on today's agenda. tv is also providing close captioning for this meeting to watch the hearing on tv, go to sf gov t v cable channel 78. please note that it will be rebroadcast on fridays at four pm on channel 26. a link to the livestream is found on the home page of our website at sf gov .org forward slash b o a now. public comment can be provided in three ways. one in person to via zoom, go to our website and click on the

hearing link and then the zoom link or three by telephone call 1669 906 833 and enter webinar i d 89690179. and once again, sftu tv is broadcasting and streaming the phone number and access instructions across the bottom of the screen if you're watching the live stream or broadcast now to block your phone number one calling in first all star 67 than the phone number. listen for the public comment. portion for your item to be called and dial star nine, which is the equivalent of raising your hands so that we know you want to speak. you will be brought into the hearing. when it is your turn. you may have to dial star 60 mute yourself. you have three minutes, depending on the length, the gender and the volume. the speakers are legal assistant will provide you with a verbal warning 30 seconds before your time is up. please note that there is a delay between the live proceedings and what is broadcasting live streamed on tv and the internet. therefore it's very important that people calling in reduced or turn off the volume on their tvs or computers. otherwise, there's interference with the

meeting. if any of the participants are attendees on zoom needed disability, accommodation or technical assistance. you can make a request in the chat function to alec long way the board's legal assistant, or send an email to board of appeals at sf .org. now the chat function cannot be used to provide public common or opinions. please note that we'll take public comment first from those members of the public were physically present in the hearing room. now we will swear in or firm all those who intend to testify. please note that any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to their rights under the sunshine ordinance. if you intend to testify at any of tonight's proceedings and wish to have the board, give your testimony, evidentiary weight, raise your right hand and say, i do after you've been sworn in her affirmed. do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. okay thank you. if you are participant, you're not speaking . please put your zoom speaker on mute. so commissioners. we do have three housekeeping items. the first one. the parties for

item number six. this is appeal number 23-017 at 12 81 to 12 83 granite street, like the matter continued to june 21st 2023, so we need a motion and a vote my shirt to emotion. okay. is there any public comment on this motion? please raise your hand. okay i don't see any hands raised so on the motion to continue this to june, 21st, vice president lopez, commissioner lumber commissioner apple er present swig so that motion carries 5 to 0 in the matters continued. the second house. keeping items regard is regarding item seven a and seven b appeal numbers 19-1 39 and 20-036 at 28 61 to 28 65 san bruno. the parties for these cases would like these items continue to also to june 21st. so we need a motion in a boat. ensure sit motion. so moved to

continue this till june. 21st okay? is there any public comment on the motion to continue these items to june 21st? i don't see any hands raised. so on that motion, vice president lopez commissioner trasvina commissioner eppler president swig. okay that motion carries 5 to 0 and, lastly, the parties for items eight a and 84 appeals at 18 63 pine street would like these items continued to next week. june 7th 2023. while they continue to work on a settlement agreement. sorry i need a motion and a vote. emotional please. i'd like to move that we continue items a day through 82 next week. june 7th okay. is there any public comment on that motion? please raise your hand. okay i don't see any public comments. so on that motion, vice president lopez commissioner trasvina commissioner limberg presents wig motion. curious fact 20 and those items are moved to june

7th. so we are now moving on to item number one. this is general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone would like to speak on a matter within the board's jurisdiction. but that is not on tonight's calendar. is there anyone here for general public comment? please raise your hand? okay i don't see any so we'll move on to item number two commissioner comments and questions questions, comments. saying no, let's move on. okay let's move on to item number three commissioners before you for discussion, possible adoption or the minutes of the may 17th 2023 meeting. shares any comments on the minutes and do i motion of approval. i moved to adopt the minute as presented. okay is there any public comments on the motion to adopt the minutes? please raise your hand? i don't see any public comments. so on that motion, vice president lopez commissioner trasvina commissioner eppler president. swig motion carries 5 to 0 in the minutes are adopted. so we

are now moving. we are now moving on to item number four. this is appeal number 23 dashes everyone five at 25 07 pacific avenue. james lipsett versus department of building inspection with planning department approval. appealing the issuance on march 15th 2023 to jamie and rory weinstein of an alteration permit. remove existing non complying. fire escape. this is permit number 2023 03143618 note on may 17th 2023 upon a motion by president swig, the board voted 3 to 0 to 2 vice president lopez and commissioner trasvina absent to continue this matter to may, 31st 2023 so that the absent commissioners could participate in the boat. the three commissioners that were present were inclined to find that the permit was improperly issued. but emotion to grant the peel would require for boats. so as a preliminary matter, vice president lopez and commissioner trasvina did you have an opportunity to watch the video and review the materials for the

hearing, which took place on on may 17th. yes, it did. yes i did, too. okay great. thank you and per president swig. the parties have two minutes each, so we'll hear first from the appellant. the parents' attorney, mr raza, welcome. you have two minutes. mhm. great good evening commissioners. i would like to take the two minutes. i have just update you on some factual developments that have happened since we were here before. overhead. okay? so in response to a complaint filed by the permit holders, the building department did some further research on the history of the fire escape. they did, in fact find permits for the fire escape. i believe they're dated 1932 and one of the issues and finding the permit. history was

these two properties, along with 2505 used to be one lot that was subdivided at some point between 1946 and 1950, so the permits are actually associated with 2505 pacific avenue. and all, uh, reserve any remaining time for questions, eddie. okay i don't see any questions. i do. okay yes. so why is this pertinent? given the what we've heard. but in today's world, this would be noncompliant and i'll ask. i was planning or db i the same question is this discovery change change rules in any way, shape or form. and how would you proceed? given that you're still going to have somebody um, you're still not going to get cooperation from the other side and the ability

to take this down houses pertinent. how's this gonna move from improperly issued? to properly issued. i just wanted to buy the information because there were a lot of allegations that it was illegal and constructed without permits, but they're actually in fact, our permits. yeah you got a suggestion for us. because we're still going to be in the same spot. unless unless if db. i still comes to us and says or or planning comes to us and says it was improperly issued. um, based on today's standards. um and you have a neighbor. um. you know, they don't have cooperation from a neighbor. uh because we were looking at what would probably be a civil suit. you have any suggestions to move this along? sure i mean, we're open to conversations with the permit holders. we haven't heard anything from them from the last hearing, so we're not under the

impression that they are looking to work with us to find a solution at this point. right. i'll ask the same question them. thank you. we have one more question from commissioner josephina. my apologies. i did watch the hearing and did hear a lot about, um what occurred and just so i understand you're you , you you or someone has found that the fire escape was permitted. at some point either the 19 thirties 19 forties. that that's correct. the department of building inspection i found that and it's noted in the complaint data sheet for the complaint that the permit holders filed against and you're and you're and you're representing the property honor where the permit for the fire escape. is attached. correct. the permit is to construct a fire escape between the proper belongs to 25 05. well it was for they used to be one lot, so

it was constructed before the lot split. so at that time uh, it was for all three properties that were part of one lot. it was issued to 25 07. she represents the people from 25 05 correct and they wanted to stick read what was up here? 25 i'm nine well, let's let's let's. it seems like a lot of us are unclear. the lips sets. your client. 25 099. so you're telling us today that the planning department is found? the permit. that created or allowed the fire escape to go up. and it's and it is associated with 25 05. correct. i'm saying they found the permit record. associated with that property, but it applies to the properties that issue in this appeal. can you read the last

words? sure the permit applies to the properties that issue in this appeal, which used to be all on one lot, but the permit. the reason they couldn't find it earlier is because it was associated with 2505 pacific avenue, which is a property not part of this appeal, but at one time was on one lot with the two properties that are issue in this appeal. so can you tell us how long it's been? associated with 25 0. nine. which is your client. sure the permit was issued in 1932. so it's been associated since 1932. 91 years. so is it. is it fair to say that if there are any responsibilities as to the maintenance or inspection of the fire escape. that they belong to

your client. because it's on your client's property. and it serves your client's property. sure the maintenance obligations are associated with the properties issue in this appeal , so that would be to 509 and 2507 pacific. but. but your your your client has maintenance and inspection responsibilities as to the fire escape that your client wants to save correct. to the extent there are any, uh, there would be both parties responsibilities both properties. i asked you are there does your client have any . i'm not sure which particular responsibilities but to the extent there early under the law, then yes. okay? and. i didn't hear any time any at any point in last of the last

proceeding that your client had either inspected or maintained it at any time. well, i think that actually, the department of building inspection found that the fire escape was in unremarkable condition with no apparent structural defects. the fire department has also been out to inspect the fire escape. there was also an inspection done by 2507 pacific avenue that found it was in fine conditions , so it's been maintained. there's no issues with it as far as i'm aware, so you have answered as to everybody but your client, which was my question. your client has not his neither inspected nor maintained it. at least thus far in this proceeding. correct maintained to the extent that it's in washington, asking has your client inspected or maintained it. they've maintained it. your client has yes, it's in workable condition. there's no issues with it. okay. thank you. okay thank you. you

can be seated. we will now hear from the permit holder. his attorney, mr williams is here. welcome, mr williams. you have two minutes. thank you, uh, you know very confusing. first of all the permit found by, um, inspector how maniac has nothing to do with 25 09. there's no reference. there's no indication at all. there's no reference at all on any of the permit documents and i picked him up today. um that was for the construction of a completely different fire escape between 25 05 and 25 07, which are different buildings on different lots. um as was established last time and confirmed by db i structure here in question is, uh, encroaching over the property line, illegal and non conforming and 25 05 still has its fire escape. it's just built entirely. he stepped farms keep still exists at 2025 05. it's

built entirely on that particular property. the permit here was properly issued to remove, you know, from my client's property and only my client's property and illegal unpermitted nonconforming structure. this research has been going on for months, these large victorian structures were turned into rooming houses and fire escapes were built at the upper floors between them, um you know the so called to permit rule cited by the department's relied on by the board. first of all, it doesn't exist, uh and certainly has not been followed in any aspect of the structure. there were no permits to permits to construct it. originally there were no two permits for the drop left. in 1965. my clients have been pushed into a no win situation and really irreparably harmed and there's a ripple effect going on. because now the lipsitz are claiming control of the breezeway, and it

stopped construction of a boundary fence for which we have a permit. um there's no substantial evidence there any evidence to set aside this permit? thank you. that's time. thank you. i don't see any questions. commissioner trasvina has a question. uh, thank you, mr williams. um the, uh, council stated that there had not been any uh, efforts by your client who communicate with the lips. it's i guess it's the last hearing. can you describe briefly. what the. that's what the level of communication has been either. started by your client or started by the but by the by the appellant. on this on this on this matter. she's correct. there hasn't been any sense the last hearing, but there were extensive settlement discussions. um you know, for

months, actually, um, you know, back over february, march april , and, um, you know, we've been trying desperately to find a way to get them to, you know, agree uh, to allow the removal of this fire escape and to build their own fire escape on their own problem. hey, thank you. we will now hear from the planning department. welcome. mr t. you have two minutes. thank you very much. i don't think i would need it all. corey teague, zoning administrator for applying department. i don't believe we have anything to add to the case since what was covered at last hearing, but i'm available for any questions that you may have. thank you. i don't see any questions. so we will now hear from db. i. um good evening commissioners. matthew green, representing the department building inspection tonight. um as we said the last hearing both

the fire department and the department building inspection believe this permit was issued. improperly um, to the fire escape does is attached to both buildings. it would require building permit from both addresses. they could use the same set of plans where they would need separate building permit applications. um there was the, um the appellate, you know the private, you know, the appellant's sorry. the appellant's um council mentioned . the latest findings are building inspector did go to the public library to do further research on the lot history here , so there is an open complaint . we're investigating the legality of it. i believe there's a site visit scheduled with mr williams for this friday to investigate so there is an open complaint going on. but we still maintain that this building permit was issued improperly. can you clarify open complaint, please? prior to the previous, uh, hearing. mr williams followed the new complaint with the department of building inspections, saying that this, uh fire escape was constructed illegally were investigated. so um, you don't

sorry. i'm sorry. yes i am sorry . so um, what does. so i think we got over that. piece which is illegal or or not legal and where we ended up was the bottom line is this is a non compliant structure. fine, which would make it not legal. we got over that that in today's world. no way. would this, um. fire escape be approved. to be over. to share two sides of shared, um two different parcels. um and we got over that if you're going to

take it down. you have to get two permits, which was the issue that mr williams was saying, no, you don't and um, clearly, um, that's the rules. if it's attached to one house, and it's attached to another house. you gotta have a permit on one house and you've got to have a permit on the other house. to do whatever you need to do. correct, correct, so we got over that. so with all that um, it really doesn't matter whether it was permitted or not. the bottom line is that if it's attached to one house, and it's attached to another house, and you only got one permit and you don't have the permit that deals with the other house than the permit. that says you can tear it down. is. if it was issued improperly

because you can't tear the thing down if it's still attached to the other side. correct, correct? yes. and i think that's that's where we ended up. last time is that all stuff aside whether there was a new revelation. i would say that irrelevant to this. it's irrelevant. whether it's can be built today or not, is irrelevant. um whether it's noncompliant is irrelevant. the point is, it's has bolts. on one side. it has bolts on the other. if you want to unscrew the bolts on either side, you got a permit for each. that's the bottom line so free for your department to issue a permit to tear down this fire escape. with one permit that's improperly issued correct, correct. that's kind of where i ended up guys. but just

cutting to the chase. so uh, mr chosen, if i mean that's where it really it's that narrow, but you can ask your question, of course. well, you're describing it as tearing down as i recall the permit talks about removal. so i removal tearing down i found the same. well, i'd like to ask tv. i can they. can the fire escape be removed? from the permit holders property. without . um and moved to the other property. what i'm sure it can be. but that's not what this permit is, um, for this print was just to remove the existing fire escape. so you're telling me so in one sentence you're telling me it can be removed from 20 from the permit holders premises. the permit, says.

removal. and now you're saying it's not possible or you asked me if it could be removed. and relocated. i took that to me. is that feasible? it's feasible. yes but the building permit before us is simply to remove the fire escape. they would need a building permit specific, specifically say, relocate existing fire escape. but it seems the permit holder wants just get it off his property. remove it from the property. that seems to me you're saying that can be accomplished. it can be accomplished. it sounds like you're saying that it can be accomplished to remove it from the permit holders property. sure it can be accomplished. but like i said, it's attached to

both properties so both property owners would need to be. we have a building permit with each address. if they just removed it from one side right? it would it would just create a nuisance and fall over the other side. it would not be removed. it was still the attached. that's why you need a building from it for both. both buildings. okay. thank you. thank you, commissioner limburg. i concur with president with that this is not just positive as true. the decision we're making, but i have the power the power to ask questions that i want to know the answer to so i'm doing it. um what is your opinion? on what the what mr azo presented regarding the 1930 to permit is that permit for the fire escape that we're talking about here or is it for some other fire escape ? uh do you know or have an

opinion on that? so like i said, there's an ongoing investigation are building inspector came up with that information yesterday . i haven't had time to review it. he he went above and beyond and went to the library to do the entire history of this property. so i commend them on that. but we i don't have an opinion on that at the moment. thank you. okay thank you. there are no further questions. you can be seated. is there any public comment on this item? please raise your hand. i don't see any public comment. so commissioners this matter submitted okay, commissioners. you have my opinion. i would be willing to make a motion to um to get this. permit suspended because it was improperly issued. therefore finding for the appeal. but. on the on the basis that requires two permits , if a structure is, uh, is on

two separate parcels and requires um, uh, requires a and, uh and activity construction activity on both parcels. then there is a requirement for two permits, and only one was issued. simple as that. i would like to speak against that outcome. and i tried to ask mr green. and he told us it's feasible to remove it. from the permit holders property. removal is removing from somewhere. well from. the encroached area back. to the people who want to who want to keep having it. there are a lot of ways you can interpret removal. there are a lot of ways you can interpret a lot of things. but there's a candidate harmonious reading.

there's canada avoidance where you interpret little words in ways that make something legal. and i believe it's a valid grammatical interpretation say. the permit holder wants it removed once it out once it unhooked from his property. ah he's gotten apparently not much communication, some some communication at the beginning. but now the communication between the neighbors has has stopped. it doesn't seem to be an interest from um, the lives that family too. reconstruct or do something or make make the fire escape operable in his own property and the permanent older just wants it off of his property wants it removed. without any regard to it's further existence. on the other beyond his property. so i if, if

the language of the permit is removed and removal can mean remove it from the permit holders property that i believe that the permit was properly issued. ah because it's because it's an interpretation of the word remove and it's in addition to just the history of this between the neighbors and, uh, the lack of the lack of ah maintenance or inspection, the type of things that have that were talked about in the previous hearing and the fact that i don't think anybody would say that this this this fire escape is going to survive. so i think if we approve if we if we support this appeal always are really doing is delaying this and providing further cost to everybody. and i believe that the right approach was to remove it. if that, if that generates

cooperation from the neighbor good. if it doesn't it's the neighbors responsibility to take care of take care of the fire escape, so i respectfully disagree that the permit was improperly issued. traveler. i look at it a little bit differently, um, in part because i think that the permit which the description on the permit is removed, existing noncompliant fire escape. doesn't say detach . uh noncompliant fire escape doesn't say removed from property even and i think that as a practical matter that's not feasible because you have a structure that is attached to two different properties. there's no indication that it is hinged in any way such that if it were detached from one property, it would naturally flopped down. so what you would end up with is as i think, mr greene said, a nuisance where you have a fire escape that is still on or over the property

from which it has been detached . floating out there. one sided attached to the other property. and to affect that outcome, which creates a nuisance and has the potential due to i'm sure those boats not being intended to cantilever that fire escape out there has the potential to affect the property that does not have a permit for the removal of this fire escape. so if it's said to touch then you know, from a technical basis. i'd say we would have a valid permit, but i think from a practical matter. remove existing non complying fire escape means to half fire escape have no fire escape because it's been removed, and i don't think that simply detaching it from the permit holders property will remove it from their property because it will still be floating over it half of it on their half of the property line. initial limburg. i agree with everything, commissioner, eppler said. and i just wanted to add

that we did two weeks ago at that's the last hearing. we did. talk with mr green significantly about the feasibility of removing it from just 11. just the. the permit holders house and the conclusion that we came to was that it was not physically feasible to do so. um, and that it would. it would, uh, sorry. i'm missing the right word. but it, uh it would make it so that the. it would essentially be bringing a new permit on behalf of the appellant here that they don't want and that they are not applying for because it would. there is no way to keep it attached to one house without doing additional work that again . the appellants have not filed the permit for, nor do they have any desire to and they made that very clear. commissioner lopez any comment? sure. shall we move

on? no, i'm i'm in line with. the two previous speakers. i think having a dangling fire escape seems like a bad idea. um . so, uh, would you call for a vote since i made the motion, so we have a motion from president swig to grant appeal and revoke the permit on the basis that it is because it's connected to two properties and requires two permits, one from each address. uh, on that motion. vice president lopez i commissioner. trasvina now commissioner limburg commissioner. eppler. okay. that motion carries forward to one and the appeal is granted permits revoked. thank you. we are now moving on to

item number five. this is appeal number 23-007 to cash you more overseas department building inspection planning department approval subject property 14 68 van dyke avenue, appealing the issuance on january 23rd 2023 to chow chang of an alteration permit comply with notice of violation number 2022. 291235 legalized one level rear deck at rear yard with one our firewall legalized middle gate upfront. remove patio cover gazebo, canopy, new bathroom and home office. remove ladder to addict . this permit number 2022 07128311. note on march 15th 2023 upon motion by president swig. the board voted 5 to 0 to continue this matter to may 17th so that the permit holder can submit revised plans to reflect the following changes won the two windows of the attic level shall be removed in the attic restored to the original condition of the house addict shall be used for maintenance purposes only not for habitation or storage. to the deck shall be lowered to grade or made no

higher than 30. inches is measured from the grade. the deck shall be set back 5 ft. from the pounds property line. these changes will remove the requirement for a firewall at the deck three. the dining room should not be allowed to be converted to a home office. consequently the plans must be revised to remove the walls at this location and the 12 inch window that is located in the 13 inch space. this motion was made on the basis that these changes will rectify the illegal work performed by the permit holder and address some of the concerns of the appellant. on may 17th 2023 upon motion by president swig the board voted 3 to 0 to 2, vice president lopez and commissioner trasvina absent to continue this item to may 31st 2023 because the board had contemplated adopting revised plans, which requires four votes the parties agreed to have the matter continued. so we do have an interpreter for the permit holders representative but i thought we would hear first from the planning department because they reviewed the plans. and so, mr teague. you have three minutes. thank you. i will be

brief again, and i will actually differ mostly to my colleague, mr green from db, but we did review the plans that were submitted relative to the, um, request from the board for the specific changes and essentially they have all been met with some minor exceptions that again i'll let mr green go through in more detail, but otherwise it seems that the plans are in line with what was requested from the board. but i'm available for any questions. you may have. okay before we begin. i just want to make sure that i've instructed interpreter to call ms strand ms. tran did to interpret a call you yes. okay are you on the phone with her? because she if you need help with interpretation. hi this is an interpreter. i've been trying to call her and she's picking up the phone just now. okay so can you translate what i just said, please. and you could just you don't need to do it on the record for zoom just over the phone's fine. okay when you're ready okay? hmm. i'm sorry. can

you repeat the last? um statement? i was calling her okay? yes he'll come. he'll come up again if you can just repeat , mr teague. thank you. okay no problem. happy to repeat. i stated that planning department has reviewed the revised plans that were submitted in response to the request made by the board at the last hearing and except for some minor exceptions that my colleague, mr. green and b will go over in more detail. they appear to meet those requirements and i'm available for any additional questions. thank you. i don't see any questions. so we will now hear from the department of building inspection. good evening commissioners. matthew green again. so tina tan from the planning department. i did review these plans and the 11 difference from what the board's conditions were. you asked for the deck to be lowered to grade

or may no higher than 30 inches , as measured from grade the deck shall be set back 5 ft from the appellant's property line, so they've decided to remove the debt completely, and it's only going to be a landing and the stairs. that's going to be 3 ft from the property line, which is for a single family home. 3 ft from the property line doesn't require up a fire rated wall. but but other than that, we believe the plans are code compliant, and they meet the wishes of the board. what about the windows? the windows are removed. when, uh okay. i thought i saw the windows on the plans. uh no. the plans from may 18th know that the show is being removed. okay, thank you. okay thank you. vice president lopez. maybe maybe i just missed his. did you say that? that the permit holder agreed to your suggestions. i'm sorry, did you

did you say that the permit holder? is aligned with your exceptions. your suggestions? well, this is their plans they submitted um, they are opposed to removing the windows. but the plans as drawn do show removing the windows. so the new plans that they submitted. don't don't have the deck. correct i understand. alright, thanks, but there is a landing and stares from the from the kitchen leading to the rear yard. and you guys are okay with that? yes. okay. thank you. anything further presidents look okay. thank you, mr green. thank you. okay we will now hear ms. tran, if you could please come up here. hold the phone so you can address the board in chinese and then okay, monica, the interpreter will interpret on zoom and so you have a total of

six minutes. so you want to speak for three. then she has three minutes to interpret. quite what we want the homes and joke got holding with a. you know that? i'm sorry. i need to advise her to stop every four or five sentence so i could interpret income accurately. sorry about that. everything i think. what? koppel hi, john conyers, okay. crowding you wanted watson polar. ah, come back. okay we comply to your requirements and revise the plan that we have, um one request. um local to go to go to what they did water, mauricio sometimes home my face on we have okay. okay we feel that the window.

it's very good for the property and for air circulation. i know no one lives in the property. but for san francisco, they there is usually the window and it's good for circulation. your longer permit. more permit. argument didn't do it recklessly. so i think there was some miscommunication or mistake that our neighbors thought we did not get a permit. we did not do that recklessly. along thailand heightened

but. stairs is because it's for convenience of walking down and up. um but we would like to request that you consider letting us leave the window there because it's going to be very hot because it's very high me like to request that your consideration of letting us keep that, um um, window in this legal we did obtain a permit. it

would cost a lot of money if we have to remove so. the window. it's um it's could be there. um, it's not that we didn't illegally but just because, uh, you know, one neighbor having issues with it, causing this whole issue. we feel very sad about.

no. about the death and we fix that. but we don't understand. why the window, um having no, not affecting him that much and we would have to close it. city told me while the permit from the city went through many departments. it was approved. so we hope of these, all of you of the shows here could really consider letting us keep the window. thank you. do you have more more law parts in. a la

and leave. want to let you know that we already, um sustained significant loss on this house. and if we have to, uh, spend more money on this window, it's really very heavy on us. they got no holes, cycles and sometimes illegal face. have five. father they've got the have fat low. also for we worst , someone suggests to us that we add two door dormant to the attic to make it taller. um and

they get legal but because it costs a lot of money, and we didn't want to. yeah, we didn't want to do that. but pickup in san francisco is very expensive. places are very small. because you have a phase onside. so you know you do tire silent, more hard. he might not georgie joe condom. yeah the house is too small. the city also saw that the house is very smaller, two bedroom. that's why we made the deck wider. and there was no lower floor. so yeah, i don't want to repeat this again. but i hope you can you guys can consider my request. thank you. that's time. thank you. we do have a question from president swig. money oh, i'm going to ask

this question of you. then i'm gonna ask, uh, mr green to step up and respond to the question as well. without the argument type. do you want that interpreted to go on the phone? would that be easier or like to ask her? and then i'm gonna ask this basically the same question , mr green, so the window, um. the window is built into the addict. correct. the um, the addict. there is no longer a connection to the attic. except by a ladder. and there is no open hole. to the attic. correct. maybe who, uh, your mostly get hogle addict to maya long hama. you're better. ii dot

you mean by the whole ah, there the windows new the windows, regardless of whether the windows exist or not. you the attic is not open to the rest of the house, atick, get your money . ah and there and therefore because the addict is not open to the rest of the house. the excuse that you need more ventilation. is not a good excuse. because you cannot get to the window to open and close the window to add ventilation, correct. quite a trick to mangope mean, keep your time. sorry legal. you can watch. um violation. you might go go and.

your home he'll have been facing long home hater. having gonna hope cocodrie city hall. later, dia snow. it's not that the attic is not connected air still circulates to the downstairs downstairs would be very cool. most of the houses in san francisco with the attic is that way you could ask the city to my headache ethic whole night. addict to have five father. how you doing thing? go have a five themselves cycle. okay face. home. he's a man. can you translate? please? okay so the

attics in san francisco you should be very short. mine is very high. i and i we can try to make it higher to legalize it, but it costs a lot of money. um and also there's no one living there, and now we're not allowed to store. it doesn't really affect the neighbors, so i don't understand. so the understanding is this. you build an illegal you. you did something illegal. construction. and part of the illegal industry. construction was, um. let me let me uh, scratch that. i don't want to go there. um the point. the intention. of this board in its direction. was to prevent the use of the attic. for any purpose. there and therefore.

because the addict will serve. is meant to serve no purpose or no habitation. therefore. there is no reason to have windows. on in the addict. mhm. come down on go. are they saying go from home, go home. legal uh, attic, come down my attic high. more young. you watch term. come on, the young tom told you home on my the younger child being with the user who had juliana but you

. that i cannot agree with, or i don't agree. if you look at all those cornered house or houses with angle, there is a window and they are legal. it's for light. as for air, whether or not there anyone lives in there okay. i'd like to talk to mr green now. thank you for your testimony. well mr we do have a question from commissioner trasvina. you want to wait? okay cannot flow just for continuity purposes makes sense. thank you . i understand. thank you, mr virginia for allowing you the continuity. so refresh my memory, please. we had a house that was built had created

improvements that were a significant illegal, significantly illegal, correct, correct, okay? part of those illegal activities. was the creation of a have habitation in the addict. and that habitation was connected by a illegal staircase. correct correct. the intent with regard to the addict was that it be returned to what it was. which was a not a non habitable. addict. that would be sealed from the rest of the house. well just to clarify there is a drop ladder. you know, one of those pulled down drop letters to access the attic for maintenance purposes for maintenance purposes, so it will be the intent was to seal off

the addict with the exception of having a drop ladder that would allow for maintenance purposes. okay so for but for all intents and purposes, the intent was that addict wasn't going to be used for any any purpose except to maintain a roof. get to maybe some wires do maintenance. correct, correct. alright. and. the intent of removing the windows. was that pretty much sealed the deal. and prevented the homeowner who had broken the law. and who blatantly. from even attempting. to reuse that space. even think about using that space for any purpose other than access for renovation. correct i believe that was the intent of the board. yes. so why

should we allow these windows? um i don't think there's any need for the windows. there are events on the rear wall and the sidewall to provide ventilation. thank you. um before, can i anything to my that i leave out of question you did not. but i if i if it's possible it could at one point to my previous statement that i forgot permission, so the plans as drawn they do. there is one issue. they do show the third bedroom as existing. um apparently it did not exist. there's no problem with legalizing it now, but i would just suggest that for accuracy's sake for the original conditions if they were just eliminate those two walls. can you clarify what you what needs to be done to? the plans submitted the plan showed the you want to show the plans on the screen. thank you overhead. um. the plans here

show the original conditions which was required and they show that this bedroom is existing. i would just suggest that these two walls be removed so that it's accurate to what was the original condition. there's no issue in legalizing the third bedroom. it's just that for accuracy sake, these this bedroom was not an original. bedroom. so what will they will they be allowed to keep those walls now, or are you or are you suggesting that those walls be torn down? it's unclear so i got to see the overhead please. so this is the proposed section. um and it shows shows those two walls. i'm just saying for accuracy sake, uh, did the bedroom was not original in this plan was showing them as original. so it is a changing condition, but you're clarifying that it was not an original condition. correct appropriate

condition. it is part of this permit, just correct it when they submit revised plans later , they just will need to correct the original condition of the plans to show that there are only two bedrooms. correct correct first floor. there's no code issues with the third bedroom. i just for accuracy's sake for the original plans there. it is not an original bedroom, okay? but you, you windows. you don't need those windows, and they invite potential use of that. correct i mean, that was the intent of the board to prevent them from using that as an airbnb in the future reminders. appreciate it, mr josephina. thank you, president swig, and i'm glad we clarified about that there is an opening to the attic. under the new plan , correct it just a lot. it's a ladder. um i have never heard of a city body going so far as to tell a property owner. but they can't they can only go to a certain parts of the property

for certain reasons. but the question i have is in the um in our motion. it says the dining room shall not be allowed to be converted to a home office. consequently the plans must be revised to remove the walls at this location and the 12 inch window that is located in the 13 inch space. can you show me on the new plans where that is? actually, actually, i couldn't find it. so this is this is the kitchen and the wall was here. and the and the window. we're talking about their proposed putting a window in right here. and the part about the yeah. and this is this is the countertop

and were and where the where the walls removed. i believe they were walls here. okay so great. so now they're going so that can't be in office. correct? and are we saying it can't be an office or were saying the walls removing the walls? it's going to be a kitchen. you can use it . the intent was i don't want to interpret what you believe. but they they were calling in an office and we were afraid they were going to rent it out as a separate bedroom, okay, but we're what what the concern i have is we are getting into use of the property. in addition. to what's appropriate construction and what is not. so according to this motion. we don't want the dining room to be converted to a home office. and the way we're doing that is by saying you can't have the walls. they're complying with what we asked

them to do. correct the walls. yes but do you interpret our motion to say that? they can't use it. they can't use that space as a home office. um are we really getting into you know i my wife uses our kitchen as a home office all the time. i okay , so then that question how we could have made. it made a motion to say the dining room shall not be allowed to be converted to home office. i guess the oh, well, i'm just recalling the conversation. i think they were calling it a i think they were calling it a home office because it couldn't be legalized as a bedroom because they didn't have the appropriate. um natural light and ventilation and the fear and if i'm misinterpreting your views, please let me know. the fear was that they were just calling that a home office to allow the walls to be built and that it was actually going to be

used as a bedroom. that's just conjecture on my part and if you interpreted differently, please let me know. okay. thank you. thank you. thank you. um i want to go back to the third bedroom issue that you brought up kind of later on. um just so i'm very, very clear. you're the only change you're suggesting is a change in the plans to mark that third bedroom as not the original state of affairs in the property. correct so. i guess my follow up. question to that then is allowing that bedroom that was constructed without permit. it was constructed without permits. correct, correct. um is allowing that third bedroom. you've said that it would be allowable. um but is our not conditioning the permit to remove that kind of just defacto legalizing that bedroom without

any process. or permitting. needs well, this is the process . you're having a permit with the proposed bedroom. um it'll be inspected. there will also be open to make sure it's okay. um, bill properly. as part of the inspection process. okay, so i mean, they are kind of i'm just based on all of the other changes to the permit that we've previously just suggested in that are reflected in the plans . um i'm not sure why this didn't come up with the original hearing. it might have just been an oversight on all of our parts. but, um it's kind of just want to make sure that i'm understanding you correctly that it is essentially legalizing this third bedroom that didn't exist before. correct condition that permit any further. okay. thank you. okay thank you. i don't see any further questions . so we will now hear from the appellant. mr morrow. you have

three minutes. i did look at the plans and, uh. what is presented, um. largely entirely, um. fit what the commissioners had voted on. so we are pleased with the plans. okay thank you. we have a question from commissioner limburg. uh thank you, mr moore. i just wanted to ask very specifically because the. deck did not strictly comply with what we did in that in what mr teague said, and that the deck has been removed. i just want to make sure explicitly that you and your family are okay with with the lack of deck and the lack of 5 ft. setback from from your property line. uh thank you for that question, commissioner number um we are okay. um. we

country to what the owners believed we are reasonable and we do want to be good neighbors and this, um this plan addresses are concerned sufficiently. thank you so much. okay. thank you. i don't see any further questions. is there any public comment on this item? please raise your hand. is there anyone here for public comment? okay i don't see any public comment. so commissioners, this matter submitted commissioners who won't start commission lopez. you've wet your whistle. yeah, i'd be. i'd be in favor of, uh. of denying the appeal based on i guess. procedurally and you mean

grant appeal to adopt the roman advised plans exactly what i mean? um with the revised plans with um. without the attic window. and with the. the rest of the plans estimated. okay, so the plan is currently do not show the attic windows so we don't need. yeah just i guess wanted to i guess separate from the motion itself wanted to state that i wouldn't be in favor of the exception that the permit holders are requesting. mr josina. uh thank you. thank you, president swig. i agree that, um, the we should grant the appeal. i think that speaks

volumes to me is volumes. to me is the is a statement of the appellant who says he's reasonable. he's in agreement with the way this has been resolved. we asked the permit holder to do certain things that the last meeting um and they attempted to do. what we asked this request. ah ah, without the windows, i think is misplaced. ah because we have made the determination and i don't think that if the permit holder wanted to i wanted to make further changes that they should be part of. that should have been part of the plans and then we could have seen them and then and the deliberated them rather than have come in at the last minute. at the same time. this matter. mhm i, perhaps for the first time. gives me tremendous pause as to what we are. what are authorities are to tell people

how to construct their homes, not how to remodel their homes not to reconstruct, but how do you use them? and it. it just strikes me that if we're some reason, the permit holder wanted to put some boxes up on that attic. that they're not allowed to do that because they've told us and we've agreed and that we've we've told them they can't use it for storage or that we're telling them they can't use the kitchen area as for office space, and if we are literally in that business, then i think i think people should know it. as mr greene said. sure people use people use their offices, kitchens, kitchens, offices, so it i think as it as they discussion came out. it gives me concern and all the more reason that and particularly, we rely so much on julie rosenberg's precision in guiding us through

at the right terminology is on the motions that it gives me another reason to thank julie for that, uh, precision and guidance, but as i think we should be concerned. about it unintentionally going overboard in restricting restricting use, not. make not not business. something to do with airbnb has nothing to do with construction . but it does have to do with use, but i support the motion. um, i. just agree quite strongly with commissioner trasvina about the windows in the attic. um as i recall the reason for us, putting that condition on the permit in the first place. um was a that all of the construction here was done without permits and done illegally, as attested to significantly by both planning and be and be of the permit holder seemed at all stages of

this of this appeal should be completely unrepentant. she attacked the permit the appellant significantly. um and, uh. mhm gave every indication that if we did not put these severe conditions on the property or on the permit, rather that that it would go straight back to being in the legal airbnb again, and i think that is exactly what would happen if and i personally believe that's also why there she's asking to keep a window in the attic. there is no access to the attic as already determined here. we've already you know, it is. i have the same thing in my house. you know, the pull down ladder that goes up to the attic that is not typically open to the rest of the house. you i've never known anybody who keeps the hatch to their attic open as a matter of daily course, um and i don't. you know, i don't think

that this um what we've asked the permit holder to do here is too far in any sense of the word. um and i will be happy to make a motion after my fellow commissioners finished speaking on this. i think mr lopez already made the motion so yep. it's okay. glad you're going to support it. can i clarify my comments and just to say that perhaps i was i didn't say that correctly. i agree with commissioner lindbergh on the issue of the windows. i think it is. it was, if the if the permit holder wanted to bring that up, they should have brought it up a long time ago. they should have put it in the permits, even though it would have been late and contrary to our motion, so i don't at all have any any support? i was not giving any support for the notion of windows in the attic. mr eppler.

um i have nothing to add. except that i read our original motion and requirements to simply state that the dining room shall not be converted with the construction of walls into a room that is marked on the permits are on the plans as a home office not not to regulate the use, but to regulate the construction of that, and, you know, perhaps we can be more careful with the phrasing. if that it is a little bit vague. if you haven't lived through the experience as we all have, but you know, i read it. i don't read it as not allowing or suggesting we're not allow that use. it's just that we're not allowing the conversion through the construction has drawn on the plans at the time. thank you. thank you for that clarification. i think it's very important. um and we had a case and i've i've lost track of the calendar, so i don't know who was here and who was not. we had

a case on 18th avenue near gary , and it was the rearrangement of a floor plan, and i think it was an access thing. um but there was a discussion about rooms and use and, um, yeah, the room is going to get used for whatever it's going to get used for, um and we all came to an agreement that that we don't we're not in the prescription business of telling you about that. you can use this space as a library, but you can't use it as an office. silly stuff like that that you just can't even enforce it. so why bother, but i think what mr apple just said was what was so, uh, this this room was built with the intent. of making it into probably another bedroom to give. give it some light. there was a teeny tiny window that was being added to give it light as you would expect that we might be one

window in the bedroom. and so our intent was to let's let's not even tempt that fate. and especially given the ah. the bad the bad activity or the of the construction in the first place , so i don't think we have to worry about being the, uh you know, you can't put it this way. you can't put your computer here because it's not home office of business. you know, it's not that bad. we've been there done that. and discuss that in the past, and i don't think you have to worry about that, and i would support the motion as it goes. so, commissioner apple er for clarity you would propose instead of saying the dining room should not be allowed to be converted to a home office, saying just that the walls of the proposed home office need to be removed as well as the 12 inch window. i wouldn't make any changes to our prior language and would just merely think

about this on a four. we're going better. so you want to keep the same language, okay? and then just a couple of other items. one as part of the motion. i believe vice president lopez inspector green suggested a change to correct the existing conditions on the revised plans that were submitted to show only two bedrooms on the first floor. uh, correct only on the original right. the existing conditions exactly. but um, and then one other follow up with to address i believe to both planning and department building inspection deputies administrator tam previously requested that the revised plans submitted for special conditions permit be submitted within 90 days of the final decision on this matter. just to keep it rolling because otherwise we will be waiting. and maybe nothing will ever be changed. so is that is that correct? assessment, or is this

the planning and building department still in agreement with that? and do the commissioners want to adopt that? sure, we have no problem with that. okay, building. okay? so just to clarify that the special conditions permit will be submitted within 90 days of today of the written decision issued by the board, correct yes. we support that. great. thank you. did you want to incorporate that into the motion vice president? okay and what is the basis for making this motion? ah! the basis is that the, uh the permit was not properly issued as initially approved. okay, um. well i think i don't know if that's the case . i think it would be more that

the revised plans to address some of the appellant's concerns, okay? uh, okay. so i will read. read the motion to the best of my ability. we have a motion from vice president lopez to grant appeal and issue the permit on the condition that it be revised to require the adoption of the revised plans submitted to the board office on may 18th and reviewed at the hearing on may 31st. the board would also imposed the condition that the attic shall not be used for maintenance purposes. shall be used for maintenance purposes only, and not for habitation or storage. and the dining room shall not be allowed to be converted to a home office, and the plans are reflect the removal of the wall and everything so and additionally the permit point, the plans must be amended. three vice plans must be amended to correct the existing conditions to show only

two bedrooms on the first floor, not three. and lastly, the permit holder shall submit the revised plans for special conditions permit within 90 days of issuance of the board's written decision for this appeal , and this motion was made on the basis of the revised plans address some of the appellant's concerns. okay so on that. 11 correction to what you said. you said a correction to the existing conditions. um what inspector, green said was the original conditions need to be updated. not the, uh not the existing. there's three sets of drawings. one is original one is existing and one is proposed right, so the proposal shows existing conditions and then it shows the revised did you want? can you clarify? i'm not sure. uh commissioner lamberg is correct. it's the original conditions. okay updated so the

original plans need to be updated to reflect that there are only two bedrooms. well there's three conditions on the plan, the original the as built and the proposed it's the original conditions that need to be okay. thank you for that clarification, so the original conditions need to be corrected. um just can we clarify what's going to happen in 90 days if they do not submit the it was my understanding that at that point , the db i start issuing an n o. v for noncompliance, you know? they were supposed to comply with that previous anchovy. okay and then i don't know if you need to issue a new one. i guess there's an existing and over on the property. there is so but just to clarify would this permit then? if they do not meet that condition with this permit, then be revoked by the border. i don't know, because we wouldn't have jurisdiction anymore. but i think you would just be issuing n. o. v s until they comply with the permit. thank you declare understanding. what for the

thank you for bringing this up and then i have one comment on before we vote, please. thanks for bringing this up. this is important. so what happens when we do this? and what happens? i'm not going to, uh, accuse this permit holder of potentially doing this, but, um but what happens in it when we. asked for a change in plans. those plans are changing, submitted. we approve those plans and therefore we approved the permit. um according to those plans only, and the permit holder doesn't comply. what's the ultimate ultimate result? and how do we get compliance? and how do we get accountability ? so if they normally if they don't come in with the special conditions permit has approved the permit. just stay suspended. it won't be reinstated until

they get the special conditions permit and so and so and in this case if it were to happen and i'm not saying it's going to happen because i'm sure that the permit holder is going to comply. but let's say the deck wasn't removed. the walls that are illegal weren't removed. the staircase wasn't removed. the windows weren't removed and the everything else that we're we are in the plans wasn't done. what happens is the building ultimately get red tagged, does it? i mean, what? what happens, moved forward with our existing those a violation to the code enforcement process. which could be you could ultimately end in litigation by the city attorney. okay, thank you. thank you have a question from commissioner trasvina. then vice present lopez. thank you. and there's more and more of a request. i see the permit holder wanting to say something or ask them questions. it's probably not

appropriate for there to be further testimony. but we've talked a lot here in the last few minutes that to a layperson is difficult to understand. in english. let alone being translated, so i would request that before they once we finish that you you and the permit holder and the trends and the interpreter, uh, speak so she can have any of her questions addressed by you sure. we spoke last week, actually, so we no problem. we can speak. mr lopez before i go go back to my suggestion. go ahead. i'm going to suggest something in the in the motion. is it about the storage? no so hearing. hearing and thank you, julie. for restating the motion in its entirety. uh, i think uh, commissioner trans venus point is well taken by me about dictating use. and i think the

habitation. ah concern with respect to you. the attic. in my mind is addressed by not having the window included. so if. if it's okay with my fellow commissioners i had i'd like to strike the limitation on storage for the attic from the from the motion by about our wisdom. sure so, the original architect wrote down, not for storage. it was not a request by db or the board. i see. okay? that changes. uh. well then, do we need that in the motion then because it's not a part of the it's not a part of the permit, is it? i mean, it's is it a part of the plans. um hold on. let me

grab the plants are clear. i would just respond by saying it. it's not part of the plans, which is why it needs to be part of the motion. because that is what ends up being recorded and the basis of the special restrictions permit, i think, and i think this statement is at the plant say not for storage. so i'm not sure why. seems like bumps suspenders. yeah, it does. not for story. plans say not for habitation for stories and i would move to strike that from from our motion. i apologize. i was packing up ready to leave. so fast. yeah

inhabitable space, not for storage, so that was on the original permit drawing for some reason i am i'm not sure why the architect decided to put that there. yeah. then in my mind, adding that to the motion seems superfluous. is it on the revised plans that language it is okay. so he is, are the commission's or agreement to strike that language. i doubt i'll strike and we'll see if it's last okay. i'm not going to reread everything. i was just going to say i'm going to ask you to reread everything so i can interrupt you at the point. i want to make the suggestion can reread everything. would you like me to gonna i'm going to interrupt you at some point. so we have a motion from vice president lopez to grant the peel. initially the permit on the condition that would be revised to require the adoption

of the revised plan submitted to the board office on may 18th and further the dining room shall not be allowed to be converted to a home office. um, that's the part that i think it is. not necessary. because. the plans have already knocked down the walls. close the window and then we're getting into trans senior territory, which is we were not in the dictation of use business. it will were intent was to not make it a bedroom, therefore closed the window. tear down the walls that's been achieved, so i don't think we need that. that little section do you agree with that? okay i can reread the whole motion. then just leave that part part out when you okay? sure okay. so we have a motion from vice president lopez to grant the appeal and issue the permit on the condition that it be revised required. the adoption of the

revised plans submitted to the board office on may 18th 2023 and on the condition that the permit holder correct the existing conditions on the original plans to show only two bedrooms on the first floor. and on the condition that the permit holder shall submit the revised plans for a special conditions permit within 90 days of issuance of the board's written decision for this appeal, the motion was made on the basis that the revised plans address some of the appellant's concerns. i'm sorry. can i be heard before we take a vote? hmm i'm going to muddy the waters a little bit. um i want to ask mr green again to look at the first floor plan. what i'm seeing is on the all three plans the original existing and proposed there's kind of a rectangle between the kitchen and the dining room. what is that rectangle? that's a counter counter. so is there a wall that's being taken down? as part

of these proposed plans? no those walls would ever built. they were they were on the plane. the plans for the permit is being appealed. okay thank you for the clarification. okay i'm good to go. wonderful okay. so on this motion from vice president lopez commissioner trasvina hi. commissioner number apple er president swig motion carries 5 to 0 and the appeal is granted with the conditions imposed this evening and uh, ms tran, we can talk to you. after the decision is issued about the process moving forward. okay so we are done this concludes includes the hearing. thank you so we can talk.