tv Government Access Programming SFGTV June 10, 2018 2:00am-3:00am PDT
>> i pulled the report on the front building. and none existed before i pulled it. that is the three r. for the rear building. >> when you pulled it, were you a representative of the property owner? >> no. >> how were you able to pull that? >> i contacted a previous deputy director of the building department and asked to is in charge of that division. are those documents public? i was told yes. >> which they are not. >> that is a disagreement that i have not litigated yet. because i believe they are public documents. i believe people have a right to know how many units are in a building. because of this, there is a units being saved right now. i added my name. i did not hide anything. i put my name there -- >> as a member of the -- public? >> yes as a member of the public. i am proud of it. there is a units going back there. it may not matter and that is the point i was going to make. they're transferring one units over.
at that point, they weren't acknowledging the units there because you don't get a three r. >> that's all right. i got my answer, but i'm highly disappointed. thank you. >> thank you. this matter is submitted, commissioners. >> commissioners? >> i think this has been us -- before us once before and it got withdrawn. it is difficult to go through the briefs. one brief was really long and the second wasn't. new information came up orally. i don't think that the zoning administrator aired or abused his power. it was issued correctly. >> i would agree. >> we've seen so many instances of the procedures that planning has gone through in terms of whether there is a see you hearing and a corollary the
variance hearing. the timing for those are not exactly the same. sometimes the variance occurs after the sea you. the logic too is that whatever the cu allows, the variance doesn't allow certain things, then that part can't be done as part of the cu. >> that would be my motion. >> we have a motion from commissioner honda. a motion to deny the appeal on the basis of the zoning administrator who did not abuse this discussion. and the letter of determination was properly issued. is that correct? >> correct. >> on that motion, president fung? commissioner lazarus? vice president swig? ok. the appeal is denied. we will move on to item
number 7. appeal number 18 dash 052. same property, 799 castro street and 3878-3888 street. they want to construct a three story, over basements, single family structure that will extend into the required rear yard of the lot. this is a variance case number 2,008, 0410 be. we will hear from the appellant first. >> good evening president fung and commissioners. i am here again on behalf of the appellant. with your permission, i will not repeat the background project. i think it is summarized in those breeds and you have heard
it tonight. i want to jump straight into some of the problems with this variance. as you know, there are five findings that have to be met. there are problems with all five in this case. this is a standard, at least, not abnormal lot, corner lot. the size is normal. the on the -- only thing unusual is the property already contains two buildings. the fact that a prior owner built it that way, big picture, the fact they chose to build it that way, and sold it to someone who eventually sold it to the current owner, investor, it doesn't allow that person to turn around and say, well it was built this way so i another -- need another variance to make it nonconforming again, or less conforming. i want to skip to find a number for offer a first. most important here. at least to my clients. that is, the variance is materially injurious to the
property improvements in the city. the basic thrust of the variance finding to meet that test is that there is already this nonconforming condition, and it has not been that bad and therefore we will let it be a new nonconforming condition. and that they found that it is consistent with the residential design guidelines. this is respectfully, incorrect. because the project is not improving the existing conditions, it is creating a new nonconforming condition. you cannot lean on the existing nonconformity for that. a 25-foot setback between the two buildings as required by code. you wouldn't believe the amount of work it took to get an acknowledgement by everyone involved that there was this requirement. the project sponsor maintains at this point, that they are proposing a 20-foot setback. in reality, they are proposing a
10-foot setback. which is a problem with a variance. it affects the overhead. this is the first floor plan, and you will note this bedroom, right here, which is in the rear yard. the setback area. it is a 10-foot, 2-inch dimension and a 10-foot setback here. the project sponsor is trying to count this is a 20-foot setback, ignoring the bedroom's existence. there is a zoning administrator interpretation dealing with a very similar issue from 2,001. it says, where it there is a required front setback, one could not build a required front setback even though the addition would be below grade of the street and cannot be seen from down the street. to clarify further, this interpretation applies to the development of habitable space or nonhabitable space, et
cetera. they're trying to count this as a rear yard setback because part of that is below grade. that is simply not allowed by code. it is not a permit of construction. they're not providing the setback they say they are providing. this is also materially injurious to my client's property, and i will turn this over to a certified appraiser to talk about what the impact is. it is quite substantial. >> good evening president fung and commissioners. i am speaking against the acting zoning administrator's decision to grant the variance 4799 castro street. i support to the appeal by the adjacent property owner at 789 castro. i've been engaged by the ownership of 789 castro street.
the purpose for me as a professional appraiser is to prepare a report on the impact on the value of 789 that the 799 castro residence is structured as opposed. my report is included in your materials and includes an impact of negative $325,000. my work is undertaken in the context of the phrase materially injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the project. these words are found in section three '05 of the planning code. please note, the variance decision erroneously fails to analyse this important aspect. my scope of work included a personal inspection at 789 castro street so i could see, first hand, the impact of the proposed 799 castro street
residents. i reviewed the plans dated february 10th of 2018, as we know, those plants require a variance. i also reviewed plans for a code and compliant with no variance. residents for 799 castro street dated december 14, 2017. the negative impact on the 789 castro street, compared to the no variance alternative, is a loss of sunlight, air and view. i will briefly give you my professional qualifications, as others have said tonight, i'm also born and raised. i went to san francisco public
schools. i think i went to high school very close to where mr swig grow up. i made it into the decade of 1970s, barely. i would like to talk briefly about my report and methodology. i looked through the document, and i've done pretty standard appraisal methodology, heavily dependent on cost. i looked at the various properties in the neighbourhood. location is important, of course. and looking at the impact of pricing for properties with abuse and properties without abuse. i also took into account size differential. table one is a smaller size properties. table two, to medium size properties, and table three, the large size properties. i concluded that the impact on the value of 789 castro street is a negative $325,000. thank you.
>> thank you. mr tunney? >> thank you. i would like to refer to the overhead for this portion. it shows the property again in its current condition. at the front the castro street building. the rear is the 21st street building. you can see the very narrow open area between the two buildings. it is 8 feet 6 inches.
with the proposed project which would be increased to 20 feet. you can see here, the reason i show this image, is because visually, it reinforces all of the facts that support the variance findings made by the zoning administrator. you can see with this image, the buildings to the east are encroaching deep into their rear yards and to the north. in effect, meaning the normal purpose served by a rear yard in this case is not served. the rear yard cannot contribute to the open space. it serves as open space for this property, and it meets those requirements. if you read the variance finding number 1, it states the subject property contains two detached nonconforming structures that cover nearly the entire lot.
the subject lot predates current planning code and rear yard planning requirements. the two adjacent properties to the east developed deep into their lot, which along with their rear existing building the subject property, effectively cuts off the subject property from the blocks, mid block, open space. it is a common condition on corner lots in this neighbourhood. i would like to show a few more images. here is a corner lot with full lot coverage. a garage in the back. here you see another large home on a corner lot. a very small open space in the rear on this one. this one shows a full lot of existing buildings on the corn
corner. again, a very small open area in the back that a smaller than the area we are proposing. here again, nearly complete lot coverage. small area in the rear. all of which is to say that this is a unique property, and the variance findings are supported by these facts. at the other findings in the variance approval go to the hardship created by these conditions, and the constrained building envelope, and tell authorizing this slightly reduced rear yard, 20 feet, instead of 25 feet, will allow a development on this property similar to other corner lots in the neighbourhood. i would like to address finding number for off route raised by the appellants.
the point to that finding, is not just the adjacent property, but the neighbourhood as a who whole. and the variance findings conclude that for the neighbour head as a whole, this project is of benefit to the community. to address the issues of the building constraints and the other concessions we made to the adjacent property owner, i would like to turn to our architect. [please standby for captioner switch]
nonconforming. it is one story commercial building. my office is in the mission. i have a parking lot and i am about to build an addition to my office on the corner. i know very well the general plan does not want gaps on the city corners. they really want the corner to appear to be a solidly occupied by buildings not solidly without gaps, but solidly to show the continuity of the neighborhood and the building fabric. what is there is not correct. so we spent a great deal of time putting together a building with the residential design team that worked for them and worked for
our client and also worked for that. then we went back again and through many i will ask you for the overhead. we went back through and made the building shorter, lower, changed the design from modern to more contextual. we moved -- we had to -- we pushed the front of the building back to eliminate the front variance. >> you need to wrap up, sir. >> we have done what we could to create a building that would work in the neighborhood. we very much appreciate you considering our variance.
thank you, mr. sanchez. >> thank you, the appeal before you now is the appeal of an art variance decision. it is rh2 zones, generally 45% requirement. you can't average against the adjacent neighbors if the properties meet requirements. they could build to equivalent depth of the appellants property. there is a provision that says 25% in between two residential buildings on the same lot. that is the rear yard provision operative here where they are seeking the variance. i would note separately the front set back is zero. with adjacent property you must average off them. at the corner it is one-half of that adjacent property. four feet five inches.
they are providing in some cases more of a front set back in order to accommodate the request of the appellant to reduce impact on their property. they are offsetting the buildable area there in order to accommodate the requests of the appellant. previous iterations did seek the front variance to the front property line. over the time it has been revised to be nor contextual, something the planning department could support. the appellant argued the rear yard variance is incorrect. they are encroaching further. they put on the overhead interpretation of the front set back provision not applicable. this is the required rear yard. under planning code section 136c it does allow under ground
structures as long as the roofs are code complete. i believe the rarians request is am crat in terms of that being set. 8-foot set back between the two buildings here providing a greater set back at 20 feet, not the 25 feet required. they are setting back the building from the front properties line more than what is required under the code in order to accommodate the concerns of the appellant. i do believe that mr. t did very well rationalize the five findings, did find all five have been met. certainly a code compliant option here would be the building. that is noncompliant within the rear yard. we have completing planning yard requirements that the reduction may trigger code 317 for
demolition. what they have done is a reasonable balance. it is better than what is there currently. it is higher than now but they are offsetting developable area in the front in order to address the concerns of the neighbor. i would find all five findings have been justified. this is a day novo hearing the apple lent has provided new arguments as to material injustice youay choose to consider. generally we would not look at matters like view. i think the main issue here is maybe one or two windows partially obstructed from the development, but those would be standard. even that could be code complete if the rear structure was demolished those impacts would be felt under code compliant
alternative. i am available for questions that the board may have. >> i have two. on the issue of the impact on the neighborhood. and evaluation. it would seem to me that creating a brand new building in this neighborhood which replaces that especially that commercial piece would in fact enhance the neighborhood and property values around the neighborhood. do you share that opinion? >> i am not a licensed appraiser. i think generally often when you see development you do see real estate prices going up. maybe the real estate agent. >> differently a lot of times when i bring up when i don't agree with a project it is out of context with the neighborhood
but this improve meant for me seems to enhance the context into the neighborhood. do you find that is the same? >> it is replacing a dilapidated structure with a modest structure that is contextual and reviewed over the 10 years. after 10 years we have a better project than when they first came in. >> the other question. the appellant pointed out there was first the 8-foot separation between the buildings. we acknowledged that has gone to at least 10 feet. is it 20 feet or 10 feet because of the little notch which is the bedroom? where is the measurement? >> under the planning code we look at the separation as 20 feet. that portion does extend 10 feet
further at the lowest level the roof is usable open space meeting the planning code provision to be exempt. it is at grade or very close to grade such that it wouldn't be counted as intrusion into the rear yard. >> thank you for clarifying. >> that is the very lowest level. it is an up sloping lot. it is at the level of garage and by the time you get to the required rear yard it is at or below grade. >> thank you very much for that help. >> from sanchez. one could always learn something new every day. i wasn't aware of that portion of the planning code that relates to when you have two structures and this is considered the rear yard for this front structure. >> yes. >> how does the department think
about that in relationship to a corner lot? you heard what the architect said for the permitr, and in general, i think that does reflect how planning has looked at corner lots where you have folks have supported more of a uniform face around the corner, but then that rear yard can be configured differently without being perpendicular to the property lines or parallel to the property line. did you guys look at that. >> reporter: with respect to this? >> the building your or relation -- building area or the rear yard? >> it is the competing policies. in the rh2 district holding the
building wall is not the driving force as it is in higher density residential districts in terms of residential design guidelines. it is just maybe i didn't understand the question. >> let me add to that question. in corner lot situations, what planning does is allow a variance to reconfigure the rear yard requirement to be in the rear corner of the property, therefore, you have a consistent building face on the corner itself. was that discussed here where you could have created a rear yard that is a notchout of the rear? >> given the lot with and it is
the standard size lot 25 by 100. i agree in terms of the lot size it is fairly typical. on the cases you are describing maybe larger or more square corner lots where we have the 25% rear yard shifting to the corner with the open space. it doesn't really apply in this case. there are planning code provisions where you don't need a variance if you did that. generally with code and design do encourage. >> i was asking if that was a thought. >> that is more on the wider lots. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? we will move to rebuttal. mr. patterson. >> thank you, commissioners. very briefly. the aerial view photo that you saw show the existing building one story tall.
this is an issue. they are making it taller and building in the rear yard again which will block my client's window. the basic premise is that corner buildings don't contribute to the open space for neighbors, but in this case the rear yard contributes to my client's queen and victorian significantly. she showed corner buildings with full lot coverage. those are one building. this lot has two buildings. i would also note that the fact they found these other comparable full lot coverage corners shows this is not exceptional or extraordinary which is finding one that is correct. two buildings is not a hardship. it is an asset to the property. they are able to have four dwelling units in the rh2. not necessary to preserve substantial property rights. they have no right to build two
buildings with four units in rh two district. i will give time to clarify a few things and answer questions about the appraisal. thank you. >> i just wanted to label my comps the valley to avoid the confusion that would include the subject property. i will answer any questions. finding number one the extraordinary circumstances. the idea that most corner lots don't have access to mid block open space, this is logical. in this case they are trying to reduce possibility of having a conforming property.
they could build this property with the code compliant rear yard to preserve the historic condition of the neighboring property which has enjoyed that corridor access to sunday, air and views and on which the property value is based. nonconformitity is not exceptional. this is to increase nonconformity as to density. finding number two the practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship. existence of two structures creating a constrained building envelope does not hold water when they have two structures with more space. it is not a constraint. they are getting a bonus already. the existing lot coverage does not present a hard ship because it is going to be replace. thank you very much. >> mr. patterson, how does the
variance impact the height of the building? >> the existing building is one story. while there is nonconformities built in the rear yard at the first floor now they are building up. the rear yard encroachment is going up to the level of my client's bedroom suite window. >> if you are asking for a conforming rear yard, it means the building gets 5 feet cut off it. >> that is precisely the amount needed to preserve the openness of the window. >> got it. >> thank you. >> president and members of the board. >> speak to the microphone. >> i am the projects architect.
we have pushed the building forward, provided a notch to provide the property line window. in 2010 when i pointed out the fact this was not a legal window. it is a aluminum window with regular glass panes. the next time it was wired glass. it is not a legal window. in any other propertyuled put in aoit wall. this is not a window that really gets a look at the tree a block away. we located the garage from the back of the building to create more open space. our garage used to be on the other side. we removed the top floor and roof deck. the deck they have called the party deck. we relocated the entrance of the building away from the
appellant's bedroom. we relocated the elevator away from the appellant's home. we pushed the new building back from the front property line. we provided a no traditional design to give both the commission and the neighbors a choice. we established a rent control accessory dwelling unit not in the basement. we didn't have to do -- we did have to do excavation on one side, but in the large amount of that space i was standing and there was this much room above me at 3880 first street building. thank you very much. i am available to answer any questions. >> thank you. mr. sanchez nothing further. commissioners. the matter is submitted.
>> i don't have a problem with the variance. >> i am the one who usually has problems with variances. not all. >> 90%. >> this situation is a little bit unusual. most of those variances occur in a real rear yard. this is between two building on the same lot. i am not sure i view it the same way that the plans is doing it as a variance.
i don't know that portion of the code. i don't recall seeing that related to when you have two independent structures on one lot how they deal with that. to me it is really the separation between the two buildings. it is not necessarily a rear yard. it is really take other building. they have a choice which building they pick as the front and which is the rear. it is really take other building on 21st street that has nonconforming and the min mist rear yard. i don't have an issue with the variance. >> make your motion. >> i move to deny the appeal and uphold the variance on the basis it was -- do we have it.
it is on the basis it was proper. >> commissioner has a motion to deny the appeal on the issue it was properly issued. presiden(roll call). >> that appeal is denied. thank you. are we ready to move on? five minute break. continue. we are going to move to item 8 a and 8b. they will be heard together. thank you for your patience. 8a is appeal 18-049 concerning the subject properties at 446valaho street. protesting the issuance on mar march 28 of 2016 of the alteration permit to comply to
change three illegal windows to three windows with w60 rating. this is aplication 201803153087. appeal 18-057 is for 448valajo street. protesting the issuance on march 28th of 2018 of the alteration permit. to change one illegal window to one legal window with w65 rating. this is aplication 201803153781. we had hearing them together. you have 14 minute as. thank you. please identify fiyourself. >> good evening. i am married to leonardo.
we are one of the owners and residents of 440442. it is located next door to the subject property. we bought our building at the end of 2013, and, yes, the windows were already there on the property line. from day one we didn't like them. we did not understand where to begin to address the issue and if whether or not they were legal or illegal. to be frank we had other priorities. that is to say just because we didn't speak up about the windows from the day we moved in does not mean we think it is okay they are there especially understanding now they are in violation of city code. in 2017, we returned home from a short trip. we notice that the windows had been changed. they were larger. this is when we started to play closer attention. last february mr. siding opposed
our roof deck that is under construction. it is fully up to code. we have presented all of the information in the briefing so you are aware of the reasons why we are here again today. mainly because of the permits issued for the set of windows in violation. we do not appreciate the windows. we do not appreciate the continual violation of codes here. we completely are trying to confuse the dbi to achieve approval. first and foremost false statement on the plans that state these windows are needed for natural light. these are extremely large windows on our profit line. there are other windows for the apartment. second not addressing the notification of violations of
all windows. only four were mentioned in the plans. there are a total of six. third the other missing items. no sprinklers mentioned, no neighborhood notification, not addressing the size limitation of the window and structural impact of the building. last week he applied for two more permits missing windows. the current permits are suspended until the decision of this hearing. quickly, the impact of the windows on us. i would like to respectfully ask the members of the board to imagine how it would feel to understand your neighbor violated city code and is on your property line not with one window but six windows accrues the length of your home. from our point of view they are unsightly, they are large, over bearing and it is definitely not a good feeling to know that your
neighbor has taken advantage of their height opportunity and has the hovering windows above your head. we just want the wrong to be rectified. you know, i would like to say that we would really like the windows to be closed. those two windows in particular next to the roof deck. they are two very large openings to living space. one is to the living room the other to the bedroom. the likelihood of running into each other when we are up there is very high. i would like to make the point that mr. sidey does not live on the subject property and really doesn't care about the impact of these windows on our lives. thank you very much for your attention.
>> obtaining the permits for all six windows, now. we are going through that process. including getting sprinklers added to each one of those windows. in terms of the incorrect information noted on the permit, and the false motive, as they stated for it natural light, we removed the verbiage from the permit language. there are existing windows that will legally comply with the violation. number for offer, the note about no fire sprinklers mentioned in the plan, we are going to be applying for permits for
sprinkle heads for all of these windows to confirm. number 5, was in regards to the size of the windows being two -- too big. it does discuss limitations to the property line. it does not have a limitation on the limitations on the openings. the applications include this permit and meet all the requirements of that local equivalency number 6 was in regards to seismic structural review. per that point we will be updating or submitting a revised permit to have the structural
calculations added. the original permits were seen as, you know, replacement in time. the structural information was not required but we will provide that. and then, you know, lastly, i would like to address the privacy concern. you know, i understand that obviously that is an important thing for everyone. we do live in a city. there are existing compliance windows that looked out onto the proposed roof deck, and can ha have... here, this is an existing legal window in the bedroom that has a full view of the roof deck from the hallway, and from the bedroom. you can go down the property line window. we have a full view of the roof
deck. this is standing in that window. we have a full view of the roof deck and some are a legal window. the addition of these other windows, there's no real change in terms of privacy. i would also point out, let me show you one more. this is a view from the kitchen window. again, this is a legal window. it has a full view of the roof deck. there is no privacy as existing from the legal window. bite the nature, simple nature of the roof deck i don't think you can expect too much privacy. you are exposing yourself, on the roof, as designed with an open railing to this guy. and to the rest of the city.
perhaps if this were a bedroom or a bathroom there would be some expectation of privacy. we are talking about a roof deck in san francisco. it will be cold. not a nice day to be on a roof deck a typical situation in san francisco. i think that covers my portion. the tenant is here and i would like to allot some of my time for them. >> president fung: ok. go ahead. >> thank you. good evening everyone.
i am really thankful for the board members for taking their time, and wanting to assure a fair outcome for both of our families. this is my family. my husband in the back. we have lived in the apartment in question. our life will be the most affected by the decision you make tonight. first, we do agree that the windows should be made fire safe as planned, but, let me share with you how much altering the window, beyond making it fireproof, will affect my family's life. thank you in advance for letting me do so. we have, both me and my husband have lived in north beach for the past ten years and we have lived and worked in san francisco all throughout. we love our beautiful city and we always, it will always be a home to us. as a background on us, we are good people. with strong family -- from
strong family and community values. we are known to maintain good neighbourly relations. as always. both our parents are kindhearted people. they instilled in us the same kind andespect for those around us. they worked diligently to give us a life that we have today. we both are professionals based here in san francisco and we worked long hours. coming home to our apartment, and just having dinner and enjoying it in front of the windows is a big part of what we like to do as a family. i just want to say, also, i feel very happy to see our neighbour and his family, who owned the building next to us, they are creating great memories -- memories for their family. i hear their cute kids playing in the backyard and feeling great to be part of a neighbourhood, a family neighbourhood. similar to both where my husband and i grew up.
they are living a dream that a lot of people like us have. we would also like to have the opportunity to do the same. with our family, without disruption of our current life by having our home's layout change and altered. i would like to point out that they are choosing to build the roof deck while we have lived in our house. i believe the privacy issue that has been brought up earlier, i think i will leave it to my has been to discuss. i just want to mention, both me and my husband, we have our lovely breakfast dinners every day by the same windows. this is my family's day-to-day life. because of that window and because of the windows in general. when we sit down by that window, looking out at san francisco, we feel like we are living the american dream. that our parents had for us. dear members, i just want to
point out that this is not just a window for us. it is a part of our life that brings the best in us. so we can get the best to others in our community. i can say this with full conviction. as i walk into my practice. every morning with a bright smile and ready to see my patients. thank you so much for your time, i hope you can see how much we treasure our home in its current form, and the windows as it is. i request you to allow to enjoy as to continue to enjoy without disruption of our current home, by any alteration to the window beyond making it fireproof, since this would cause undue hardship on us. we appreciate you guys being here and lending us an ear for everything we have to say. thank you.
>> i think my wife summarized most of what we have to say. but i want to point out that, you know, we want a good and easy neighbourly relationship. we have always been good to people, as you mentioned. it looks like, what in fact has happened is the owner from a long time ago, not even the people that have built and kept these windows, i don't know. i'm not familiar with the legal codes. it has been there. from what my understanding, my landlord bought the property as of last year. from that point on, nothing has changed. our neighbours have bought their property well before my landlord bought his property. and finally we come in. we recently moved into that property, and of course, we saw the apartment and to be loved it and we moved in because it so
happens that we may have chatted to our neighbours and we love the place and moved in. we continue to live our life there as is. we setheir family going about their stuff, and we go about our work and our day-to-day living, and we are happy with that. honestly, i'm sure you are very familiar with the plan and lay out. the way it is right now, our building where we live, at this level and there's a two story house below us. right now we look on to their rooms. as we live in my apartment, they cannot see us and they cannot judge we cannot see them. in february, we saw workers come in and they very quickly put out the deck that you are seeing. and then we assume they will build a roof deck across our bedroom.
and like i think the architect was mentioning, even if everything is removed, they will be looking into our house and day-to-day privacy of us, where we live, will be invaded, versus someone who has the option of putting a roof deck on their house. they have chosen to do that. i think what i'm trying to say is the way we live right now, we look on to their roof. it is a roof deck -- roof deck and a violation of our privacy. if you look at some of the pictures they have presented, they have taken photos of our t.v., of our room. they will be able to see that and be able to see our kitchen. we are ok with that, it is not that big a deal because, you know, they can enjoy their roof. we are all in the city. we can all enjoy it. i find that we were very, sort of taken aback that they want to alter the house and home that we are building. we want to -- we don't know the
ins and outs of it. our professions are completely different. we hope that you give us a fair outcome where we can live our lives and they can live their lives. we definitely want a solution. let me just say, our landlord is a very kind and nice man. he is not an aggressive person at all, ok? he practically wants to make everything fireproof. he has always been like that. i think he is also working to make sure that happens. maybe he has gone about it in a very weird, or a way that is not probably in the process, but the outcome is that we can make it fireproof and we can stay there. they can do as they like and we can be friends. even if they come off from the roof deck, it is not that big a deal for us. it is not a big deal for them because as we live, we cannot look into their house.
i'm not sure what it would be. i thank you for this opportuni opportunity, and i hope you consider how much of a hardship any further changes to our living space would make for us. it would affect us day in and day out. thank you so much. >> vice-president swig: do you mind if i ask the tenant a question, firstly. >> president fung: i have no questions right now. >> vice-president swig: how long have you been at the property? >> since february of this year. >> vice-president swig: during your tenancy, were there any modifications to the windows? >> no. nothing. >> vice-president swig: thank you. >> you had a question for the architect? >> president fung: right. so, the size of the existing windows represents what percentage of the walls?
>> honestly, we did not do that calculation. >> president fung: ok. do you agree or disagree that it is in excess of 25%? >> i can't say. but we did, because of a be zero zero nine, our understanding is we do not have to comply with that portion of the cdc. >> president fung: i read your brief. i saw that. ok. let's continue with the hearing. i have some further questions. >> vice-president swig: i actually have quite a few property questions. how long have you represented your clients? >> i think we've been working with them for front 4-6 months. >> vice-president swig: ok. so, do you know how long these
properties have -- these windows have been on the property line? >> my understanding is they have been there, actually i don't know. i can't give you a number. >> vice-president swig: is the reason why this is coming up, is this was before our board prior? and regarding the roof deck that is on the next house? throwing rocks at glasshouses does apply here, right? the question i have here, what did you modify the windows from, into? what was a current configuration prior to you installing and enlarging the windows? >> i was not a part of that. >> vice-president swig: is your client here now? >> yes, he is here. >> commissioner honda: why don't you go ask him, and i can wait. so the question is, how long have you owned the property? >> i have owned it since april 2017. >> commissioner honda: ok. during your ownership, did you make any modifications?
>> we do not do any kind of modification as far as the windows is concerned. the only thing we did is there was one window that needed some, iink there was a crack and we replaced it with a pane of gla glass. >> commissioner honda: so those windows were replaced prior? sorry to interrupt you. >> they were all replaced prior. some of them were done in 2011, the previous owner. some of them we looked today and they were there prior to 2,002. >> commissioner honda: thank you. that was my question. >> thanks. >> we will hear from mr duffy, the senior inspector with d.b.i. >> commissioners, joe duffy, d.b.i. so, two permits. one permit to comply