Building inspector joseph duffy will be here representing the department of beuilding inspection. The boards rules of presentation are as follows. Appellants permit holder and respondents are each given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. People affiliated with these parties should make their statements within the three minute periods. Members who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each and to rebuttal. We ask that you speak into the microphone. You are asked to submit speaker cards but youre not required to when you speak. The board comments and welcomes your feedback. If you have questions about requesting a rehearing, the boreds hearing rules, please ask the staff before or after the meeting. Or come to our office. This meeting is broadcast life on sfgovtr cable channel 78 and will be rebroadcast friday at 4 00 on channel 46. There are dvds of this meeting available for purchase on sfgovtv. Please note that any member of the public may speak without taking the oath pursuant to their rights under the sunshine ordinance. If you wish to testify in these proceedings, and you wish to have the board take your statement as testimony weight, please stand as youre able and take the oath. Okay. If yo thank you. So we have general Public Comment. This is for any member of the public to speak to the board on anything within the boards subject matter jurisdiction but is not on tonights calendar. Is there any Public Comment . Please step forward. Good evening. My name is jerry dradler. 1919 arabell kendall lives across from me and she acquired two lots and merged it into a double lot. There are three written references to the lot merger in the report thats on the slide. All sales of the merged lot after 1919 included a lot description for a single lot that is 50 feet wide. If the lots were never merged, there would be two separate lot descriptions. On january 7th, 2017, the chief city surveyor issued a certificate of compliance dividing the merges lots into two lots. 26 days later, on february 2nd, tim brown submitted their final certificates for certificate of compliance application, contending there never has a formal merger of the two lots 97 years ago. A second odd thing happened in 2017. I filed a sunshine request at dpw for this project file on november 29th, and five days later, the developers surveyor who prepared the coc application showed up to survey the merged lot, ten months after the coc was issued. I have filed sunshine requests with dpw asking for documentation for their decision to split the double lot. I have received 56 nonresponsive documents and dpw says there are no more documents. I tried to file a complaint with the board of appeals about the coc and was told my complaint was not within the jurisdiction of the board. I then tried to file a request for jurisdiction which was also denied. My appeal is within the jurisdiction of the board because it falls under the general mission of the board and because the San Francisco business and tax regulation provides for such an appeal. My neighbors and i have tried and been did he any idea tenie opportunity clerk excuse me. Our screen is flickering. Oh, im sorry. Okay. Go ahead. My neighbors and i have been denied the opportunity to participate in the public dialogue of a normal application to divide an existing lot. The issue before the board is not about my neighborhood. This is not mr. Browns first violation. He is a serial violator. In 2017, he acquired a home by master architect Richard Neutra and totally demolished it without a permit. I shudder to think what he has planned for 2017. The issue before the board is developer abuse and weak city enforcement. We all need to do our part to end the abuse. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Is there any other general Public Comment . Seeing none, then, well move onto item 2, commissioner items and questions. Anything, commissioners . No. And item three commissioners is your consideration of the minutes of the january 17, 2018 board meeting. In additions or corrections . If not. Let me entertain a motion to accept. I am sorry. Let me correct that to january 31st board meeting. Theyre all running together. Motion. Okay. We have a motion from commissioner honda, is there any Public Comment on the minutes . Okay. Seeing none on that motion, then [ roll call. ] thank you. That motion passes. Okay. Item 4 is a closed session. This is to do with Public Employee appointment for the Deputy Director position at the board of appeals. The first part of this is to have the public take Public Comment on all matters pertaining to the closed session, so is there any Public Comment on item four . Seeing none, then, commissioners, we would need to entertain a motion to decide whether or not to hold the closed session. Move to enter closed session. Thank you. We have a motion from the Vice President to hold a closed session. On that motion from the president. Yeah. [ roll call. ] so that motion passes. We will go into closed session, so we ask those in the room to move to not disclose discussions held in the closed session. Okay. Thank you. On the president s motion to not disclose [ roll call. ] okay. Thank you. That motion passes, and there will be no report on action taken in the closed session. President , did you want to take a short break or want to proceed . You need a break, commissioners . Then lets move on. Were calling appeal number 17189, the propertys at 524 to 528 valencia street protesting the judgment given to nilesh patel, remodifications to rear firescape dropdown ladder, and we will start with the appellant. Please step forward, you have seven minutes to present your case. My name is joe kenas. Im a tenant at the crown hotel. The construction that alternated the fire escape without a Building Permit on the 12th of april 2017 was done just to remove the fire escape on the ground floor to favor the restaurant there. The contention that im setting forward is that the california fire code from 2016, page 274 states exactly what is possible from the determination of a fire escape or a large capacity building, large occupancy. The crown has generally about 50 beds and about three or four of those rooms are usually double occupancy and in addition to that, theres also people that are staffed there without beds. Theres night watch or desk clerks, so its well over 50. The california fire code insists, on page 274, under the 1104. 16. 6, the determination must go to the ground in the form of a stairway or counterbalance stairway, and the exception is for low occupancy buildings of ten or fewer occupants, in which case, you can have an approved drop ladder that works with a crank as has been put in now without any Building Permit at all back in april. Ive not insisted that the only solution to this is to go back to the original form of a rigid staircase in an original position, but i wanted to give the owners of the building, the project sponsors a way to see that i was willing to compromise and give them the use of the back of the building as a back room storage area for their restaurant as they have done over the years, and they could still have a rigid staircase to the ground to follow the requirements of the california fire code as stated. We have a lot of crank down drop ladders in town. In fact, the crown hotel has one now on each end, on the valencia street at the front of the building, and now one in the back. And these things usually are unused. The Fire Department tells me that they dont try to use them. If they go there with their ladders, they put their ladder up against the balcony on the far side of the building and extract them rather than fooling around with a crank and a flexible drop ladder, which they have no experience in operating. Im asking you people to consider this as an easy vote. I ask that you consult with each other and try to be unanimous. Ill take your verdict either way, but its a fire safety issue. I am an amputee. Theres some other people in the building with dependance upon using a walker when theyre on their feet, or a walking cane, as ive brought, and we just need a stairway from the lower balcony of a fire escape down to the ground as required by california fire code 216. Thank you. [ please stand by ] terms of exit requirements. The restaurant in case of fire or emergency restaurant, thats a second occupancy and come out that door in the back, the rear door. And this dropdown ladder was on the door. Previous to that, there was original stair to the north, to the south of the exit door. That was removed and i have a copy of something written by the housing inspector. It says the Health Inspector write a required structure at the rear of the building and this was because a door exiting the restaurant swings into that pad and the pad is only like four feet from the Property Line to the back of the building. Theres not a lot of room. The drop down ladder was in the wrong place but could be relocated, so i met with the Fire Department and they recommended to move the ladder, and i do it. So i do that, prepare the drawings and went through the process. And thats when mr. Patel ordered the ladder to be built, the dropdown ladder and extension of the balcony. Thats when we got the appeal. We have a condition where the restaurant has one door for exiting to a narrow space in case of an emergency, theres a conflict there you have a ladder or stair placed in the way. Thats why the fire panel recommended for the north put the ladder and that would be a good solution. Thank you. Are you finished . I have a question. Is there a reason you did not submit a brief, sir . A brief . I was not aware that i was okay. Did you have a permit to do the work . Yes. Okay. Would you like to see a copy . If you could put it on the overhead, that would be great. The application shows thank you. Because there wasnt a brief, i didnt see it. Thank you. Im done. Can you show us the elevation . I think the appellant had a copy of your drawing, showed the previous condition and dropdown. Can we see that again . Let me show it to you. So the existing rigid is on the right, is that correct . The existing that was removed is the one here. A suggestion sorry, gary, could you back that out a little bit. Our screen is flickering. Go ahead. Go ahead. Mr. Kenas drew this by hand to replace the ladder here. When this was removed, the existing, the dropdown ladder was folding exactly on top of the door and that caused a violation. When the violation was issued of course we needed to take care of it and we placed a new dropdown ladder here with an extension of the balcony. The dropdown ladder will be here and the exit going in this direction through some neighbors yard and easement to 16th street. So in essence, the door is here, plenty of people can come out of there in case of fire or emergency and out this way also. Both spaces have stairs, the restaurant so they can come out the front and the back. But in the back we have narrow, very small space, only four feet. From the back of the building to the property in the back. Thank you. Well hear from the department. Joe duffy dbi. The Building Permit is complied of violation, 2012 permit, ab19 modifications to rear fire escape, dropdown ladder. It was filed the 30th of october 2017 and issued 4th of december 2017 and reviewed by building and Code Enforcement and housing inspection, Planning Department, building department, plant check, Fire Department and Central Department bureau. The ab19 is in the the San FranciscoBuilding Code and its a local eequivalency. It looks properly reviewed and code compliant at this point. Im available for questions. The appellant stated according to the state law, a dropdown ladder of this type is in sufficient for the amount of people in the building. You just listed a litany of people who approved this dropdown ladder. What is legal and what is not legal . The appellant said this type of dropdown ladder is not legal because there are too many people that the building serves and then obviously you just gave a list of approvals, so those people obviously think it is legal. Why is i think i can answer your question. One of the conditions is that the occupant load ill read it for you. 1. 3 there are so many conditions for local equivalency, it will take 10 minutes to read it out. 1. 3, the total load above the first floor doesnt exceed 50. I havent had a chance to see the plans. I saw the architect with a set. That is a good question for them and they should have provided those and it was a condition of approval. Im assuming that everyone who reviewed this would have checked for that. Its part of the conditions for approval. For me, this is the pivotal issue, how do we verify above the first floor theres an occupancy load of over 50 people in todays forum . It should be on the drawings. We should ask the question of i think the other side to your question is the state has a fire code but the city also issues whether it accepts the fire code or issue amendments to it. Or in this case equivalencies. I thought dropdowns were not an accepted equivalency. Yes, i see that. But one thing during this job educates you on code sections, i was unaware of it as well. I know its been back and forth but its obviously back in there. Its part of the 19. The latest edition of ab19. In San Francisco we need the abs and theyre useful and the building and Fire Department sit down together and go over them and do come up with solutions for the zero lot line building, a lot of conditions in old existing buildings. I could look at the plans that the architect has and i did notice as well, theres literally dozens of complaints on this building like sometimes theres 68 filed in a day. How long of a period . Daily . On my phone they keep coming up. Are they anonymous . Probably residents i would imagine. Mostly housing inspection services. So the other thing that strikes me as an issue is that you just said to ask about a calculation to load and then theres reality and the reality would be how many regardless of the architectural calculation, what is the reality of how many beds are in these rooms regardless of what the red sheet says. This is about life and safety which for me is number one importance life and safety the theres nothing more important than saving a life or preventing the impairment of a life. For me i would have to be careful to understand that the number of beds in the building are not in conflict with a spreadsheet. There are two exits. When you have two exits, you split the load between two. President fong answered my question. Its set up in such a way that the load sets that up. Its set up in a way that if theres overcrowding, theres ways for the city to enforce that via the building and Fire Department. They are strict about it in certain types of occupancies. If there are too many people in the building, thats a major problem. Part of the conditions of approval, it does go to the drawings, was it addressed and if not, then we have an issue obviously. If it was, they have to comply with the occupant load on the plans. President fung i think the operator should meet with us while you talk to the appellant. Microphone. For people who are amputees like he said he was, theyre relying on a second exit, is that how it works . There are areas of refuge for that purpose. Thats correct. Now in older buildings, the New Buildings today, highrises are better than the older buildings but that is something that should be not sure in the old code how it would work with the billing but an area of refuge is required through the code at the time and then they may not have to provide that. Im not sure if its an issue or not. I dont know what difference that would have made from this alteration. I dont have enough information without the drawings. How much comfort should i get in that the Fire Department signed off . I would assume and i presume it was reviewed properly, ab19, theres a lot of these in the Building Code property, we see them all the time. I always think they get extra scrutiny because theyre slow to equivalency other than someone who comes in with a regular permit. Theres a lot of things they have to meet on here. I would assume that Fire Department plan checkers are pretty thorough. I know a lot of people work up there and they are good people and approving them. The fire inspector would be involved in the signing off and building inspector. You have two people and i think youre asking more about the approval than inspection at this point, but our inspection plan is set up in dbi, there are several staff that work at dbi on a couple of floors. Thank you. Good evening president fung, just briefly, this was reviewed by the Planning Department and approved on october 30, 2017. This is a five Story Building, entire lot caoverage, historic building, replacing the ladders to rear fire scape and minor interior work was able to be approved in a valid way. Im available for questions you may have. I have one, sir. Weve heard there are multiple complaints through the building department. Are there from planning . The only complaint that shows up in the system at this time is a complaint regarding a general advertising sign from several years ago. Okay. Thank you. Any Public Comment on this item . Seeing none, well have rebuttal, starting with mr. Kenas. If you have anything to say you have three more minutes. The drop letter is something the Fire Department tells me is just a bottleneck. To take the smallest amount of space possible from the ground floor where the termination of the firescape is supposed to go with a stairway. If the owner of the property wants to use the space for the restaurant on the ground floor, thats why the fireescape has been removed from the elevation, the ground flo