tv Government Access Programming SFGTV July 21, 2019 2:00am-3:00am PDT
the purview of this body. >> the board certainly can do that. as i have said, we are prepared to argue the case. this permit that is before you today is to add roof decks and roofs. this is not for substantial rehabilitation. this is additional work, separate work, and the owners are happy to do that. it is not really the issue that the appellant is here to talk about. thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. fisher, you have three minutes to respond to this. >> this is all news to me. i guess the real question is that they need to grant us the appeal. the tenants want housing. the role of the department of
building inspection is not following up on violations, i am ready to go on this. >> you can talk to us. >> this is really interesting because this has gone on for a year and this is an eviction of long-standing african-american tenants. forty years in this place. jackie long has mobility problems, her daughter is schizophrenic, her son-in-law has had six surgeries since 2014 due to a work-related accident and has more coming. these people have no safety mats -- safety nets and cannot be moved away from their doctors. i went into this because i don't want this on my head. i have been to their weddings, i have been to their funerals. what is going on here, which is really offensive, as i have a report from their engineer from 2018 about what is needed from the respondent about what needs
to be done to the building. it is nothing close to what they are doing. they are trying to create luxury housing and climate rehabilitation. they want to put rooms in to make an 11 story flat when it should be an accessory dwelling unit so we can house more people in our neighborhood. and this whole way he has not been cashing the rent checks, threatening with violations, so for me to come here now to say i acquiesced this, they need to come along and put more on the table because this has gone on for a year. he has not offered them anything we are supposed to now say, you know, if he wants to say we will fix up the middle unit, which we are not doing any work to, and we will move you into it. we get that, i'm happy to withdraw this, but i went over the respondent's appeal and i saw excuses and so many falsehoods which i'm also prepared to address here. this is ugly. this is a person who came in, but a building with protected tenants, with two vacant units
because they have them on them, and building -- the building has been continuously inhabited and the structural engineer says it was a soft story retrofit and some floor bracing. that doesn't help taking the tenants off. rehabilitation is not the same as building luxury housing. i would really like to be heard on this unless they are really are going to work with the tenants. >> can i ask a question? i understand your passion and sensitivity and care for the situation, but we have a choice here. we can hear the case, and if you win, the permit will go away, or there is a willingness by the permit holder to cancel the permit today, which will have the same effect.
so if you win, the permit goes away, or if you we don't have a hearing, the permit goes away. so why should, i'm trying to figure out why should we waste your time tonight? or the other alternative is that we continue this, and i would even ask you how much time would you be able -- would you be comfortable to have a further conversation with mr. -- mr. patterson and we continue this so we maintain the jurisdiction here at appeals. nothing will happen except for the fact that they will have one more shot at the ring. if you would like to say okay, we can continue this for two
weeks, four weeks, six weeks, and we will come right back here and the same thing -- >> you if you want the permit to go away, one way or the other tonight, or do you want another, give them another shot to hear you privately and come with new council, new advisory, and if you are not happy, you are back here in two weeks, four weeks, or six weeks. >> very good. there is one other issue. >> i'm asking you a question. i don't want to hear the case right now. if we want to hear the case we will hear the case right now. i am asking you, you are in the driver seat right now. do you want the permit to go away, or the permit to go away another way, or would you like,
with new council, hopefully a more levelheaded that will listen to you, and give them another period of time. your call, by the way, as to what period of time you would like to give them. you are in the driver's seat here. what would make you feel most comfortable? >> i need to confer with council for a moment because there's a lawsuit that has been filed and i'm not about to drop this. >> we are not asking you to drop it. >> how many minutes would you like to visit in the hallway? >> i would like five minutes in the hallway or we can move to the next case and come back and make this hour last. >> if they really want to have something on the table, i'm willing to give them a chance. >> with the permission of the commissioners, rather than giving you five minutes, we can give you a few more minutes and we can move to item ten, and
then here you after we finish with item ten. how was that? >> that is fair. thank you. >> mr. patterson, does that work for you? >> yes. >> that is fine for me. >> i just have a question. i thought that mr. duffy was involved in the discussions that were taking place a little earlier between the parties. >> i don't mind them talking, but in the brief it indicated that the property was in very poor shape and i was just wondering if the department had verified that. >> i think if fellow commissioners don't mind, and if it is appropriate, i would like to hear from mr. duffy before we go in -- >> and plus be haven't heard from the senior inspector the whole evening. it is good to see joe. they have new council so i don't mind continuing no matter what. >> so my question is, the
relevance of this permit to what you all may have found at the building. >> right. i wasn't involved in discussions but more about the cancellation of the permit and i don't think this permit, this permit is more of an improvement of 109 which obviously, it sounds like there are structural problems in the building and some of them maybe addressed on this permit, but my understanding from speaking to mr. patterson, and you can ask him as well, is that some of the work has been done with the rear storage, but there are problems with this building that need to be addressed. now there was a report in the brief, exhibit c, and when i read that brief last night, to be quite honest with you, i hadn't seen a document like this from our department and i have been working there for 20 years. it was called a preimprovement inspection report dated december 19th, 2018 and it had a whole
-- the way it was laid out in the way it was done isn't something that d.b.i. does. so i believe what happened was one of our new inspectors had a discussion with these property owners and this report was compiled, but i jury it to the attention of some of our acknowledgement this morning and the inspector, he has created a document here that we wouldn't be able to stand over and d.b.i. , you have heard me speak your many times, i speak about complaints received, notices of violations, order of abatements, we have our process and our housing inspection, electrical building and plumbing. this report incorporates all of those divisions into one report and that is not what d.b.i. does bill walsh is the district inspector and mr. walsh is a new inspector. we have a lot of new inspectors. he probably is feeling that he's doing the right thing by documenting something, but this isn't the way we do something like this. it just simply isn't.
had the case been heard, i would have spoken to that as well. there are notices of violation on the building and there was a notice of violation issued by mr. walsh, as well. just in reference to exhibit c, it doesn't mean anything, and we are dealing with it internally at d.b.i. and, you know, it is not a document that we would stand over. i think it is more of a document that you would see from a licensed engineer or an architect or a consultant as to the condition of the building, but not something the building inspector should be having his name on. and because we have our own processes that have been in place for many years and ends up ultimately -- it could end up as a task force inspection where we have building, electrical plumbing and housing all going together with some of them even from the city attorney's office and then it is into the abatement proceedings. that is just what i want to say on that.
>> if we were to continue it, would you do a site visit, inspector duffy? >> if required, yeah. i will not write a report on it. we have -- if there is an emergency -- >> i get it. >> if this building is in serious condition or imminent hazard and danger, we would issue an emergency order. we would red tag it and we would add a do not occupy. we haven't done that. we haven't been asked to do that >> there are people living in this now and we're hearing one side and i would have felt much more comfortable had you visited the site. that was going to be my question sorry to put more extra work on you. >> i never mind that. it's okay. but if there is electrical problems, plumbing problems, other maintenance problems, you know, it is going to be different divisions. i can go there and look at it and tell you the building is --
>> the permit before has not had anything to do with the latter part of it, and unfortunately we get into it. but the permit before us is completely different. at the same time, we would like them to resolve how the permit holder has new council. i would like a minimum to allow this to happen. >> if you look at the permit itself, it doesn't look unusual. if someone is doing a roof deck, they are doing a remodel of a unit, they were doing rooms on the ground floor, we see that all the time. we're dealing more here with the circumstances of the tenants. the permit itself doesn't look that bad for what they're going to do. but there are other issues that are going on and we know it. >> thank you very much. >> commissioners, can we hear item ten? let the appellant -- >> i think they are back. >> no. >> and new council can go talk
about it, then we will hear this out of order after we hear ten. >> do you guys need gloves or a referee? >> we will referee for you. >> we are now moving on to item number 10. this is appeal number 19-054, serena calhoun versus the department of building inspection. they're protesting the issuance on april 30th, 2019 of an alteration permit to replace six windows with the same size windows that are on the back, not visible from the street. this is application number 201904 and 9355. we'll hear from the appellant first. >> good evening and welcome. it is your lucky day. you got to skip a case here. >> i thought it would be another hour. okay. good evening. normally i see you when i am representing one of my clients
as our architect. today i am here for a more personal reason. my home of the past 11 years. as noted in the admittedly lengthy brief about six windows, which i realizes a little bit over, to me the devil is in the details. the proposed scope of the permit in question is a simple replacement of my neighbor's downstairs windows. this is the photograph of the front of the building and these are the windows in question on the bottom. in my own unit, which is located directly above there is, i replaced my own windows just three years ago as part of a renovation. and then turning the corner onto the back of the building, not in the photo. i did not go fully historic in nature with my own work, nor do i expect my neighbors to. i only ask us to try to get windows that will be weatherproof, that are safer the downstairs tenants, and that match so we don't have a patchwork quilt of mismatched windows. in reviewing my neighbor's brief
in detail -- detail, i appreciate this process has given us time to work out some of the details and get additional information. i see that they are no longer proposing the change to a single hung style operation, so that concern is off the table. also, i see no evidence from the inspection report they provided from 2016 which i have not seen, and also from the photographs they provided, i am satisfied that a repair is needed. i do not agree that a full replacement is needed. i have done a lot of repairs and similar conditions, but i do agree that a repair is needed. i will note just a couple of corrections to the items that were listed in their brief on page 2. they stated that our h.o.a. approved the change to the windows, that is inaccurate. we requested additional information. secondly, on page 5, the clear opening of the proposed new windows that they suggested is not a typo. 12.31 inches is the clear
opening of that window based on the documents from the milgaard website. i realize that h.o.a., the seats are outside your authority. i'm not here to have you satisfy a dispute. i will use this process to address the three items that are within your jurisdiction. first the permit review procedure, secondly the code requirements and safety concerns , and finally, a clarification on the preservation radio. related to -- i'm sorry. these are photos of the windows that i did directly above just for reference. you can see that they are set back and they do have a detail that goes into the transition from the gem and jam and the stash to the glass. okay. first of all, related to the permit review procedure, the downstairs neighbors had assured us they had the approval of both
preservation and fire, but neither of those departments had stamped on the permit application form. it was not reviewed or routed to either departments. i will defer to joe and scott as to the correct procedure, but because the permit didn't reference that these are both egress windows and also changed to the material of vinyl, i feel like it is possible that it should have been routed to both preservation and fire and was not because of the permit application that was relatively vague in terms of the scope of work. i will defer to joe and scott. i respect their procedural inputs. secondly, related to the code requirements and safety concerns the work includes alterations to the egress windows for the downstairs unit. it is a one-bedroom. these windows are the egress windows for that. under the existing building code , the replacement window shall be the manufacturer's largest standard size with that will fit within the existing frame or existing rough opening, et cetera. the tuscany series that they
selected does not meet this requirement. their websites, the tuscany series of a 2-foot wide window has an opening listed of a little bit less than what was on their window order, so i will use the 12.31 inches, but the milgaard also makes an ultra series that has a wider clear opening of 14.5 inches shown here. it represents a serious reduction in the size of the clear opening area as compared to the existing window. the solid wood windows actually swing all the way open. there is no reduction in the frame around this, so it opens approximately 21 inches and will be going down by almost half for the only bedroom windows in that unit. the proposed installation of a retrofit style window that fits inside the frame instead of with a nail also reduces the size of the opening. a nail on fit would increase the clear opening.
i will also, it also provides for a lot better waterproofing that we can install a better waterproofing assembly around the whole window with the nail on which is part of the reason for the renovation and the replacement is that these windows were leaking potentially and caused some dry rot. without that nail on fin and the overlapping waterproofing, it will be less protected. incidentally, the windows that i installed above would be an even larger opening of 18.81 inches for the same style of window. 4.3 inches wider as well. related to the historic character, i will defer to scott about this, but planning's purpose is to protect the character of residential areas, conserve and protect existing housing character and preserve landmarks and historic buildings this is a class a resource. it is on the eligible panhandle for the haight-ashbury district.
i can't remember exactly. i realize that planning reviews are subjective and that their primary focus is on the street frontage, by the character of the building is not limited to the front façade and neither is planning's jurisdiction. for example, i doubt that they would support installing vinyl windows in the rear of the julian morgan building. i also doubt that may have neighbors with support replacing our other windows above that are original from 1891 right above there windows with vinyl. i am aware of the standards for window replacement are for the street facing frontage. i cited it in order to illustrate the logic behind the standards. mixing window materials, and inconsistent appearance to the building façade, and installation of six new vinyl windows introduces a new element that will make it even worse. it is a recipe for ugly. with that, i will stop because i'm out of time. >> thank you. >> question for you. i know we are not involved in the h.o.a. disputes, but since you're h.o.a. still has the
power to say they can't do this, why are you before this body? >> it is about the timeline. i think i laid it out in the brief, but we were not aware they would be replacing the windows until the end of april. hour or -- or mid april, maybe. they sent us an e-mail saying they would be replacing the windows. we had one meeting, at which point they already had the window order together. i rejected it, me upstairs neighbor asked for additional information. two days later, there was a mull from them saying they had gone ahead with the window order and they had satisfied the issues. i knew we were on the one day deadline to the brief. i filed a brief, i find the appeal, -- i filed the appeal because i really wanted this time to give evidence the upstairs neighbor is neighbors to make her final decision. >> what is your request today? some of your matters have been addressed already. isn't the opening size and the materials of the replacement windows? >> i'm looking for information information from joe and scott to reinforce for me upstairs neighbors to understand that this is a safety issue and that
preservation may have wanted to look at it and that it was not reviewed as they said. i would like to have the permit revised to be reviewed by those two departments. i don't know if it is too late to do that now in this process or for requires cancellation of the permit or not. >> as you stated before and is planning may discuss in their time, i don't believe that rear window are subject to the same standards, so i don't see that they would need to review it or that it has not been properly reviewed by planning in that regard. the openings perhaps are subject to review by planning and we could have them discuss that, but the nature of the materials would not be subject to review by planning and reviewed by this body. thank you very much. >> yes. >> i have to ask the obvious question. are you guys talking? >> yes. we are. we did have a meeting and we did talk about it. the timeline was very, very fast to be honest, these neighbors purchase the property three
years ago. the upstairs neighbor and i have been there for 11 years. their daughter lives in the downstairs unit and she is the only person we have spoken to for the last three years. the first time we met them or have known about them is when this happened in april. we are speaking, but they asked us not to discuss this until all the appeals had gone forward, all the briefs have been filed so we had all the information we needed to make a decision. >> i mean, you are a qualified, experienced architect, and i am assuming that the property owner and/or their daughter are not, do not carry the same expertise as yourself. it would seem that they are getting a lot of good for the expertise, and maybe maybe it would further a conversation and yield a mutual decision to do something different, or are you
at loggerheads? >> i think additional conversations will yield results deathly to your point, there has been an attitude that my experience is not particularly relevant on this one which i find frustrating, but, you know, here we are. we have all the information, we have pages and pages of documents and details and i think that we will come to a resolution. >> right. so the point of this hearing tonight is really you want to hear from planning and d.b.i. to give their opinions that might be in support of your opinions or not, and we might do a continuance so you can continue chatting or we might just fine for you are fine for them. >> sure. then it just goes back to the h.o.a. absolutely. thank you. >> i got it. >> thank you. we will now hear from the permit holder.
>> good evening. thank you for being patient. >> no problem. thank you. thank you for giving us the opportunity. i am the co-owner of the condo together with my wife who is here, and my daughter who is still at work. it takes a family these days to own a condo in san francisco. >> it takes three families sometimes. >> anyway, thank you for the opportunity. i am trying to be brief. i have some things that i wanted to talk about. it might looks like i might not even have to do this anymore because this is the first time that she has actually acknowledged dry rot. she has denied dry rot the whole time through the process, and several other things, so i'm happy to hear that. let me go briefly through these
points that i want to make. i want to get specifically to the h.o.a. part and how the decision was made really quick at the end. so the idea here was to replace the windows because they are badly damaged. you can see that an exhibit 2. i think it was acknowledged, and the windows that we have down on our condo have no classic features, so there is no o.g. logs or anything like that. they douched -- these windows were a decision in 1981 to replace these windows, so they are somewhat passed 1981 and they were put in. they have no historic relevance. they are in the back of the building and on the side of the building. they are overlooking our exclusive use area, which is our patio. they do not define any historic character of the building. because if you look at the photos, exhibit 1, of the back
of the building, there is a mix of things. so my neighbor still has o.g. windows that she pointed out in her photo. right next to that she installed the marvin windows which are modern style, they have no o.g. locks from the outside, and they have wide frames as opposed to the frames of the old windows. they have modern doors in the back, so the back of this building is beyond historic character. the fact of the matter is that the windows that we chose look almost exactly like the marvin windows that she has, and that was acknowledged in our h.o.a. meeting by our other neighbor who looked at both. we had an example of the window there and from a distance you can even see that there is a difference. regarding the permit process, i wanted to address this. this was an over-the-counter permit because this was a simple
window replacement. there was no change of size, frame, functionality, so the city allows for this, and any kind of various reviews of other departments i think are not needed. this process is to avoid these types of things. i don't think there was anything wrong with that process and the way it was done, you know, first of all, we selected a contractor and then after we selected the contractor, we informed the h.o.a. that we wanted to do this so then concerns were voiced and we immediately asked for a meeting and sent all the plans that we had at the time, which by the way, were not the plans for these windows, these are just the marvin standard window drawings that our contractor had given us. we gave these off to the h.o.a. and asked for a meeting. they were two weeks between that and the meeting. there was plenty of time to go through this.
we had the meeting, and in the meeting, are neighbor voiced all the same concerns that she voiced here and in her brief. we provided a window, a sample window, we had a meeting, we went down and looked at the situation, and then we took a vote. the vote was 2-1, go forward. you can do that. with two conditions. that we check with the city that we don't break any rules, and that all the windows are the same, so we don't mix single hung and with other styles. we talked with the city several times and we had e-mail conversations with scott and joe about this as well. there were no concerns about the project. the egress requirements, here is the deal. there is a code. i am not an architect, but there is an existing california
building code under -- under a section for replacement windows. in that section is stacy can replace a window if it fits, if it is the largest parcel size that the manufacturer offers with the same functionality, and you put it into the existing opening, then you are exempt from the typical egress requirements like 20 by 45 or whatever it is. that is exactly what we are doing. we are putting the largest possible window into that opening without altering the opening. one more word to the measurements. there are manufacturer drawings that are made with the windows. they show the actual size because the window openings vary depending on what your frame actually is. you cannot go outside and highlight the size and say that is the size. we have to wait for the actual manufacturer drawings to see what the size is.
so what she is providing, the 1l standard drawing that our contractor put in our quote and said, this is what i am quoting. these measurements have nothing to do with what we are actually putting in their. so with that all said, so the timeline, i think i talked about that already regarding the h.o.a. so we had the meeting, the vote was there, there was never a decision in this meeting that said, you have to come back and report what you have found. there was a decision to move forward 2-1 if you do these two things. we did those two things. by the way, we reported them via e-mail to everybody. i guess that is what i had to say. thank you. >> i have a question. you mentioned earlier that you have exclusive uses. is that deeded exclusive uses?
>> yes. it is an exclusive use patio. is a patio that my daughter uses she has her furniture out there and her grille. miss franklin can walk over to the washer dryer. she walks over to get to the washer dryer which is on the base, but other than this -- other than that, yes, it is just for us. >> thank you. >> i wanted to emphasize a couple things that you said to make sure i'm hearing correctly. with the window opening, it sounds like the information initially submitted was what you're contractor gave you to say here is an idea of what we're thinking about. >> that is what we had the end of april. his we gave that to the h.o.a. for review. >> i want to clarify, you are not planning to decrease the window opening sizes? >> we are not decreasing the frame opening. we're taking the window out and we are putting a replacement window in. there is a frame left and right
because it is a complete functional unit that gets put in with the replacement project. so it might be a little smaller, but what i have had with the manufacturer's drawing for our exact window frame, but again, as stated, the existing building code for replacement windows states if it is the largest possible manufacturer's window in the raw opening that you have , then you are exempt from egress. that is what it clearly states. so even if we lose an inch or two, we are still within -- >> it seems like you're trying your best to find windows that fit the openings as best as you can. >> yeah. we agreed, as we agreed in the meeting, all the windows would be the same size and so they all look the same. we agreed on casement as opposed to the single hung that we had originally thought we had --
that we would do because that would produce the opening because it is lower. >> got it. thank you. >> thank you. will now hear from the planning department. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. the board has her the appeals of window permits before and often the ones before you are the ones were planning department has denied a permit to legalize window replacement. this is not the case. this is the permit to allow for replacement of the same opening of a window that is not on a façade that is viewable from the public right-of-way. the planning department does not typically review window replacements that don't have a change on the size of opening if they are not visible. the exception would be for certain historic buildings, in particular for the landmark buildings, and then we are looking at all of the façades, and you could need a certificate of appropriateness to allow such a change, even if it is in the
same opening. in terms of the window here that they are proposing to replace it with, it is within, it is a historic resource. the property is within the eligible panhandle for the historic district. because of that, does have a heightened level or view. does not appear that this was routed to planning for review, but was discussed with planning staff. this is not how he would have handled it. they say typically for such applications where there is a change in the size of the opening that is not visible from the public right-of-way, and kind of more of a courtyard area , it would and a permit. it looks like d.b. i did it for us in this case. i don't see any issue and staff reviewed the proposal and they didn't have any issue with the proposal. you are well aware the department has stringent
parameters for windows. there are different policies and procedures when they are not visible from a public right-of-way. and wally would generally always want to have, you know, a starkly accurate replacement even if it is not required, it is just not required in this case and, you know, windows can be inferior products and have the longevity of wood windows or clad windows, it would not be a requirement to do those replacement windows. so with that, we don't have an issue with the subject permit. it was noted web of the o.g. logs, did seen the replace and windows that were done above, i did not cog logs on those windows. they looked to be of nice quality from the photo, but the other windows that have been replaced on the back are not full historic replicas either. i can see the desire from the h.o.a.'s perspective of wanting to have perspective -- consistent façades for windows.
and that is what we strive for in the façades of buildings, and that is why when we have condo conversions, we have height and level for review. for windows we scan to see how the windows have been replaced because once a condo process happens, they can be a lot more difficult to get compliance for window replacements. so that is one of the triggers. and often the permits we bring before you are those kinds of cases. in short, and i'm probably being too long, it does not violate the planning code. thank you. >> one question for you. i think the permit holder claim to the windows have been replaced and the other unit in 1980. do you have any record of that? >> i did not review the permit replacement. >> thank you. >> thank you. mr. duffy? >> commissioners, joe duffy, d.b.i. this building permit is a pretty typical, easily issued standard building permit for replacement
of six windows on the back not visible from the street. it was an issue over the kind of approval. these are usually pretty easy. applied and issued on the 30th n the 15th of may. just a couple of things. the permit looks properly reviewed and approved. he did not get taken to planning we typically don't -- in our permit tracking system, if it was a landmark status and that but -- and that building should show up as a little taken a box, and then that would tell staff that we have to send it to planning or intake staff. there is no mistakes there. the fire department sometimes do review projects, and in these types of buildings when there are three or more units, however , due to the cause of this, with only $3,000, just replacing windows, we do not write those to the planning or the fire department.
i believe it has to be 50,000-dollar more project before we do that, or if it was sprinkler work or fire life safety work, then the fire department would do that. and a couple of things in the brief and in the comments there, the gentleman spoke about the california existing building code. i read that little bit differently. basically, and egress, i will try to make it simple, if you have a window in a bedroom and it does not meet the current requirements of 20 inches wide minimum clear, 24 inches height minimum, 5.7 square feet in the clear opening, in the window is within 44 inches of the floor, if you don't have that and you want to change or windows, we are not going to let you go any less than that. you if you can make it bigger, great, but we're not going to let you lessen that.
the part that i read about in the california existing building code, which actually i was not that familiar with until i looked it up, but when windows are required for emergency escape and rescue openings, this building it was in our two. the window shall be exempt from the requirements of the section 1030, 1030.3, 1030.5, which is the california building code. provided replacement windows may supply conditions. and below that, the replacement window is the manufacturer's largest standard window that will fit within the existing framework. the replacement window shall be permitted to be one of the same operating size as the existing window or style that provides for an equal or greater window opening then the existing window so we don't -- we go equal or greater but not smaller. there is a claim by the appellant that that opening is a little bit smaller.
we don't want that, and i don't know if that is the case or not. it was just in the brief. but maybe we put some language in there that we are going to uphold the permit that the existing egress opening, with, and height, be maintained in the new windows. that might change the order or style, but again, it is a pity they couldn't work it out. i encourage them to get together and figure this out. it is unfortunate a permit of this magnitude, of this so small ends up here front of you. hopefully they can figure it out i am available for questions. >> thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? we will move on to rebuttal. you have three minutes.
>> this is a picture of the existing window. the one on the right is the replacement vinyl window that the other one of my clients illegally installed. you can see is a pretty dramatic difference in terms of what it will look like. i think, based on joe's commentary just now, the replacement of the window will definitely, significantly reduce the overall clear opening area and it would be noncompliant. the only other thing is that i think, i will talk for just one second, our upstairs neighbor is also here if you have questions for her, but in reference your question about the 1981 permit, there is a legalization current on file for that downstairs units. i went through 40 hours of deep dive history trying to find when it was originally built. it does say there was a finished basement in the original 1891 for sale adds. there were permits referenced. four units in the 1960s, and a permit in the 1960s to remove a basement unit. there has been a unit down there
for a really long time. the drawings are sort of unclear legalization sometimes try to guess at what might have been there and show what is there. i tried to reach the original architect from that. i called a lot of people. it is indeterminate. i don't know, even if they are not, they're consistent with his dark character of the building and i would hate to see it change. this is my most important space. i love this building and i cannot see it defaced. this is a disfigurement for me of the building. it will also compromise the waterproofing assembly and make the unit less safe by reducing the clear opening size for their own daughter and her future owners. thank you. >> there was an assertion that the other windows in the rear of the building had also been replaced in other units. can you speak to that at all? >> i did my unit about three years ago upstairs. there was -- you can kind of see here where the latter is. this is an old picture from
before they moved in. the window by the latter is a glass -- >> it has the red dots around it >> to the left of it by the latter. that is glass panels on a hinge that open and close. i replaced that. and then the windows in the back of her unit are not historic, they were remodelled. my guess was in the sixties, they were renovation permits from the sixties. when i did my unit a tour mine out and change the proportion and sizes to match the historic character of my dining room windows. >> thank you. >> so are all your windows matching by the same manufacturer? >> yes, except for the original existing 1891 window. >> when did you install those? >> three years ago. >> were the owners downstairs there at that time? >> no, they purchased their unit pretty much in that same period of time. >> was there much discussion on the style when you chose your
windows with your neighbors? >> with the upstairs neighbor, definitely. the downstairs neighbor at that time was not living at the property. she had a renter. >> okay. thank you. >> thank thank you. we will now here from mr. me shaw. you have three minutes. >> unlock went to talk about the egress stuff anymore. i think we heard enough about that. regarding the defacing of this building, i have to say that just take a look at exhibit 1. i think it is one or two that shows all kinds of different views of the different windows that have been installed in the back, and you can see that all the windows that were installed. there are so many different
windows. they have insect screens, they have no o.g. locks, they are white in color because that is what you buy today when you get these things, they are white. our windows look exactly like that. they have no wider frame than those, they are white, so if anything, they will match the windows above them and they will not look any different than that i don't know. is anything else i can address for you guys? any other questions? >> i think the only thing, and i tried to beat a dead horse here, but i think we just want to make sure that we are maintaining the same size opening. i think earlier she was saying you are largest -- using the largest and that is what you are required to do. using the mark -- the largest size that you can. you're saying they're still there still would be a little bit -- it is not as big as the opening, or you are not sure what the size is. >> i'm not sure because we don't have the manufacturer's drawings
i have to say that i assume there will be -- they will be slightly smaller. you're putting in a complete functioning unit into the existing frame. we have a chance to make that a little better, but because the frame has a trim around it, it is about 1 inch wide, so if we take that off and install into the frame instead of on the trim , we are getting another 2 inches. so we will do our best to get the largest opening we can get with a replacement window. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez? >> thank you. in response to that question about permitting for the window replacement in 2015, there was a permit to do a kitchen remodel for one of the upstairs units and replace three windows and
rear building similar to the permit that was on appeal before you. it was not brought to the planning department for review. to reiterate our point from last time, is we do prefer the historically accurate the wood to wood, same size, that is all preferred, but if -- there is no requirement under our guidelines for this to be a wood window other then a clod window, and final. vinyl is not ideal, and we agree with the appellants that visually, having consistency of the window would be preferred, but not a requirement under the code. this is one of the issues we can have with h.o.a. and with condo buildings, unfortunately. with that, i'm available for any questions. >> do you remember the old commercial, vinyl is final?
>> thank you. mr. duffy? >> phil duffy, d.b.i. just to reiterate, the opening cannot be smaller. doing your best is not -- it has to be equal or greater, it can't be smaller. these are important parts. it let's the fire department get in if there's a fire of it let's people get out. it has to maintain or make it better. you can't do his best. if his best is smaller, that will not work for our code. i just want to reiterate that. does a simple enough thing, but it is an important thing. i don't want to lessen the importance of it. >> great, thank you. >> i have a question for the appellant again. when you replaced your windows, did you put new construction within, or did you remodel? >> i did new construction within
i did knew siding across the back. >> thank you. >> thank you. commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> does anybody want to comment? does anyone want to comment? >> i think with both departments and they have told us what is allowable, and at which point most of this potentially is an h.o.a. situation, which is not review to this body. i am willing to deny the appeal that the permit was properly issued. >> i'm not going to go that way. i think this needs to be conditioned as was suggested so that you grabbed the appeal on condition of the permit on the basis that the window needs to equate to the current opening. >> but that is already a requirement. >> i am more comfortable with and's direction.
it is the same thing, but makes it very clear with some parameters. >> i thought inspector duffy suggested or somebody did that we do that. >> can i clarify for a second, it is just one egress window. there's just one egress window that is under consideration. or do all the window opening sizes need to be the same? >> no, that would be right. good only be in the bedrooms, and only one of the windows. bedroom windows, at least one window in each bedroom to maintain the current opening. the current opening size and width. >> i would agree with that. i think it is important for safety. this is what is needed. >> the permit itself says replace windows, same size. we want to grind in that the
sizes of size, that is what it is. you can't make it smaller. >> so doesn't need the condition because that is what the permit says? >> i think it will help with what we want. i don't know where it's going to go after this, but it could end up in d.b.i.'s lap, and that lease we will have some guidance it cannot be less. the egress size cannot be lessened. something like that. >> i think after you could maybe sit down and have a chat with the property owner. >> absolutely. if he gets identical windows, you just go to a window shop and tell them you want the same windows, then you've got the same thing. >> but what he is saying is that the retrofit is going to be -- >> you can't do that. we have all replace windows. you can get the same one. >> so you will be making that motion? >> yes. [laughter] with a little help from my
friends. >> so we have a motion from vice president lazarus to grabs the appeal and issue the permit on the condition that it be revised to require that the opening of the bedroom window be the same size as the current opening. on what basis? >> the basis that that will make it code compliant. >> on the basis will make it code compliant. on that motion... [roll call] that motion carries 4-0. >> thank you. we will just wait a moment for commissioner condo to return. >> he is hungry. >> okay. we are back to item number 9.
appeal number 19-056. did the parties reach an agreement? >> we have. ryan patterson for the permit holder, i appreciate the time to talk. we have been out in the hallway talking. >> no blood. >> we have agreed that the appellant is going to withdraw the appeal. we are going to cancel the permit promptly with d.b.i. and we are going to meet in the immediate future prior to the hearing for the lawsuit. if the board is board is amenable to that. >> we are because it is up to you guys to work it out otherwise you will be back here again. >> so should be continue it until they cancel it then accept the withdrawal so that way it ensures the permit will be cancelled? >> that is what we were going to say. >> i think that is appropriate. >> and that will happen administratively.
each of us will sign the form and the rest will happen administratively. >> shall we make a motion to continue the item to some arbitrary date and then if it is cancelled -- >> then i can dismiss it. we don't even need a withdrawal. >> exactly. >> let's do that. >> a motion to continue the item until -- until whatever what everybody wants. >> his or any public comment on the item? okay. did you want to continue it to the next hearing, july 31st? >> is that enough time for you to cancel the permit? >> we are able to sign the forms immediately if d.b.i. is able to process that within a week. >> yeah. perfect. >> excellent.
two weeks maybe more appropriate for cancellation. >> i would actually like it to be cancelled by july 31st because there is a separate legal action pending. i am willing to go -- >> a week is fine because you don't need -- >> our next meeting is and two weeks. >> so whatever the next meeting day is -- >> july 31st, that is two weeks from now. >> i could administratively dismiss it once i receive it. >> in the interim it is the hope that it would be dismissed. >> this is just a window of time okay. is this a motion? >> yes. >> we have mr. david would like to address the board. >> sorry commissioners, when these cancellations come in, we do need to lift the suspension of the permit in order to cancel it. i can't cancel the permanent --
the permit. is actually back in a reinstated state for like 30 seconds and then it is cancelled, just looked to let the permit holder look when we are in the middle of doing it. i can expedite the cancellation if i get a copy of the building permit, a cancellation form as early as tomorrow morning. it can be brought up through our finance people and then once i get it in my possession, i can go in. i would requested from mr. rosenberg that i just let her know that we will let the system -- let the suspension cancel the project. >> that can happen before the end of this week. >> thank you. we have a motion from president swig to continue this matter to july 31st so that we give time for the parties to cancel the permit. on that motion... [roll call]
>> item five, communications, director, i have none. item six -- board members, do you have any new or unfinished business that you would like to address? if not, i think i will move into a special item that we have today recognizing our director, who is leaving us. this is his very last meeting as the director of transportation. before i get into that whole presentation, i want to call up supervisor aaron peskin to speak and give his presentation, then we will move through the director to do presentations, and many others want to recognize you today. supervisor peskin? >> thank you, vice vice chair. commissioners, director, and to the remarkable staff of the