exist for owners to seek redress. without notification, the planning counter accidently bridge this. the basement still has extensive problems. we respectfully ask you to take jurisdiction so we can appeal and ask you to review this permit. thank you. president peterson: thank you. we can hear from the permit holders now. >> i am the permit holder, sam ball, at want to introduce my

family. -- and i want to introduce my family. this is my wife, my son, my daughter. these are my parents, who are the co-owners of the house. and this is our attorney. >> good evening. the appellants have waited until $130,000 in hard and soft costs, 40% of the way through to completion before filing this appeal. at the could've been filed when they file their appeal of the revision for the. what appealed. that have provided no good reason as to why they did not do this at the same time. my clients did not have to do neighborhood notification for their first permit but they did anyway and handed mr. soto behind us, who was a carpenter, a full 11 by 18 planned months before the issuance of the first

permit. we believe that mr. soto, a carpenter, should have been able to read those plants. you do not need to have the permit before you tonight, the permit their request, to render the decision that the appellants 6 from you tonight, which would be a decision to require a variance for rear yard additions at the previous owners of this property built. the size of the rear portion is already an issue before you tonight and that is because appellants have already filed an appeal of a revision to the permit and the zoning administrator can tell you that your decision tonight to overturn the revision that is before you is enough to cause him to require the variance procedure that the public are asking you to provide. so we ask, how will the denial

of the jurisdiction tonight help and a member of the public? having hearing on the merits of the main permit, not before you, is like granting of jurisdiction and is completely superfluous. all the parties are here tonight to discuss the real issues regarding whether variance is needed, granting late jurisdiction would delay up to six weeks a hearing on the merits that we are ready to discuss tonight. it is an unnecessary use of your resources. it would be almost five, six weeks to hear the matter again. the same issues will be brought up then it as can be brought up, which, should a variance be required for the revision permit to be upheld? my clients are paying to mortgages, living in two places, two sets of expenses, and this is why we have so many nice families like this who are moving somewhere else and not

doing these projects. thank you. president peterson: thank you. mr. sanchez? >> thank you. good evening, president peterson, scott sanchez, planning department. this is an issue about whether the proper notification was performed in the first place. based on my initial review of the subject building permit application, it would not have required a prenotification, but i think there are other considerations the board should be made aware of. we have already issued a stop work order for the subject permit, so we have required that work at least at the rear portion of the building not be allowed to be completed because of the concern that was raised about whether or not the rear of the building was code complying, having been constructed, as is required in the rear yard. it was built prior to 1958, when the special use district went

into effect. there is a revision. -- there is a of revision. at the end of the calendar that deals with the issue of the rear yard. as it indicates, if this board finds it is not a legal non complying structure, they have to go through the various process. if the board makes it determination it is legal, they would not be required to go to the various process. those other matters i think the board should consider in this jurisdiction request, and i am available for questions. thank you. commissioner fung: mr. sanchez, i saw your documentation, but i did not see a position by yourself or the planning department. >> our position on the rear yard is, at this point in time, we don't have any evidence is a legal non compliance structure.

that is why we had issued the stop work order because we did not have any evidence it was a legal not complying structure. commissioner fung: and that was based on the permit history research? >> right. commissioner fung: okay. president peterson: thank you. it is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. vice president goh: i have a question for mr. sanchez. if we were to grant jurisdiction in this, what would we have in front of us that we do not have in front of us in the matter that we are hearing later? >> there are several possibilities. if the board grants jurisdiction, opening the appeal went up, i imagine it would be six weeks out or so that the appeal would be scheduled. if at that time the board finds

it is not a legal non complex structure, we would require them to go through the various process. however, if the board makes that determination tonight, we would conceivably have them go through the variance the next available calendar, at the end of january. i think it is a matter of time, a question of the rear yard. i think the same question will be before you, regardless of if it is just the permit or if you have both. we suspended both permits. sc6ybut we have allowed work to continue that was within the existing legal footprint, as per our records. vice president goh: and what projects are sent back -- are set back to go to the northwest? >> those can be expansions of the building envelopes. this does not represent an

expansion of the building envelope. it was just simply an alteration and repairs to the building. what would have gone, you would determine if it is not a legal not complying structure, we would treated as an expansion. they would need to legalize the expanded envelope and go through the various process and all the other reviews that would be required. vice president goh: okay, thank you. i am sorry, i have one more question. what notice is required when one unit is being changed into two? >> the section 311 notification, adding a dwelling unit, which would also trigger section 311 notification. vice president goh: that is not in front of us? >> correct, we do not currently

have an application to have the second dwelling unit. it would be rate allowed under the rs-2 zoning district provided it met its -- provided it meets the code. vice president goh: okay, thank you. commissioner garcia: i was hoping you would go first. at any rate, i think would be a question of jurisdiction redundancy. the issue that will be raised in what is item 10 tonight, the revision permit, mr. soto will have the opportunity to address some of these issues. this couple has described there is page 2 to this project, having to do with adding another unit. at that time, there would be 311 notice and mr. soto would have an opportunity, possibility of a variance hearing. there would be opportunity

there. even though he was not officially noticed, he was effectively noticed in that the plans that this couple used in order to redo this house, he has been privy to them, he has seen them, so i personally would be against granting jurisdiction. ]q see anything jurisdiction would provide that we're not going to discuss at the item 10 hearing. president peterson: i tend to agree with that, but have the feeling i might be missing something. i feel like we should kick the decision on this hearing request until after we hear the other case. i also don't feel well and may go home early, in which case we will shut down this hearing

because we need a quorum. i should put on the record, too, i used to sit on the northwest of for all heights design review board. i sat on that board for years before i was appointed to this board. i did not hear this case, and my history on that board will not affect my decision on this case. president peterson: thank you, vice president. i tend to agree with commissioners garcia and fung, and that the issue will be addressed in the other permit. what we could do is perhaps move the merits and address that. now -- and address that permit now, move that up the calendar and here it presently and decide on the jurisdiction. commissioner garcia: that makes great sense.

>> you want to hold this item open while we call the next item? president peterson: correct. >> calling item 10. >> calling item 10, appeal number 10-101, john and catherine soto, against the department of building inspection, 10 lundys lane. it is the protesting the issuance on august 27, 2010, to sam ball, a permit to alter a building -- revision to building permit application, cost savings, revise plans to show rear walls, demolished and rebuilt in kind, upon exposing structure the walls were found to be on salvageable, building permit application number 2010/8/27/9763.

>> i was not a carpenter. i was a carpenter 50 years ago. president peterson: bring the microphone up. >> this involves the horizontal extension and stop work orders. notice of violation not appeal by the permit holders are revoked. planning, threats over the counter under system, approved erroneous -- through its over- the-counter system, proved erroneous plans. based on this erroneous approval, they ever honestly issued the permit based on the errors. we learned that planning had given erroneous approval for the original plans, granting what will essentially -- granting what were essentially in proper permits. we appealed the revision permit for building the extension to the board on the grounds that it

is not legal. the zoning administrator issued a decision that the permit history did not support legality. demonstrate the illegality through the permit history city documents, supporting testimony from the family that built it. the owners argued the extension is legal nonconforming and the city lost the permits and records. there is no evidence that supports this theory. the permit holder still states it will build this to plan, plus a second unit, which requires a minimum three variances -- two without the second unit. neighbors within 150 feet have the right to 311 notification and appeal time. instead, we have an after the fact petition, conducted by the permit holders, and apparently improper use of san francisco public school stationery. our goal is a new umbrella permit with proper notification. we request the board of appeals

confirm the revocation of this already revoked a permit. o!hm mr. gladstone? >> our family is saddened by what happened to the previous owners. miami -- my name is anne highes. the previous owners went bankrupt and lost their home. the appellatnt lost their neighbors and friends. the recession affected the neighborhood, where incidentally my grandmother was born 95 years ago, on this very day. is her birthday.

but now our family faces crisis. we're paying for two places because of a stop work order. we face months of possible appeals even if you rule in our favor. we are devoted to this committee. my husband co-founded citizens come to reflect san francisco diversity. i have been teaching in san francisco 20 years and it 10 years at hillcrest elementary. it is a port for me to be part of this neighborhood -- is important for me to be part of this neighborhood where some of my students live. i want to introduce you to my parents, co-owners of this home, and their grandchildren. this is our attorney. thank you. >> thank you. i have to improvise. the architect to the project was told to come by later because we're the last item to help me show things on the overhead. he has the overhead, so we will improvise and did the best we

can, thank you. this is an unusual case. we have a family that is only seeking to live in the building envelope of the house they bought, and with a situation of a family that used to live there in the same footprint that my clients are seeking to keep. dbi called this building virtually uninhabitable. there is a list of about 12 some problems with it, and the notice of violation sent to the other family that my clients did not know about. in a recent letter to your board, the castillos state their work without permits was done at the rear of the home and it was performed in very recent years. the appellants state the work was reason enough that the planning code had already been amended to allow the rear yard addition to be built only with issuance of a variance.

the appellants said the castillos at the rear yard additions specifically after october, 1978. why? after that date was the time that a building at this death cannot occupy with the building does today, which is all but the rear 17.5 feet of the property. may i see the castillo letter? ironically, the former owners letter that the pilots provided to you and is now on the overhead -- that the appellants provided to you and is now on the overhead, supports our case. i draw attention to what is in yellow. it says, "my father built all around the backside and that under. he dug it out for us, around 1970. then there was a fire, no. 8 next door burned." this time line is supported by

the only building permit that is on record at the building department the entire 100 years of the property, which we will see now which was dated october 26, 1970, to cure the fire damage. this, we think, is the reason you can make a finding tonight that this was built prior to the time building this would have triggered a rear yard variance, built prior to 1978. we could have not said it better ourselves. you might ask why my clients don't go for the various process. they might succeed it and you may ask, well, to have to go through 311 to add the second unit and saw the same envelope there has always been. since that requires the 311 notification. the appellants have already announced they will request d.r. on that, which is adding a full bath to a half bath and full kitchen to have kitchen. my clients can and wish to move into this home as soon as the interrupted phase 1 work

approved by planning can commence. but if you roll the rear yard variance is needed, work to complete phase one will continue to be on hold probably another six, nine months, and later i will explain why so many months. what that means is during those months, my clients will be paying two sets of mortgage, property tax, insurance, and maintenance. the allegations of work potentially expand beyond what the permits showed have absolutely no merit. the existing conditions behind these are very old homes and cannot be predicted until uncovered in the field. when uncovered, they often trigger changes and the scope of work. the contractor then decides with the building inspector whether to immediately seek revision or whether to wait until more unexpected conditions reveal themselves, and then do one big revision. this particular contractor on this job, with a field inspector

on the job, decided wants all such things were known, it would seek application for revision. nonetheless, he made a revision of the first item that he found, and that revision is before you. there is also a claim of serial permitting because of the two phases. that is false. first, the'w my clients do, which was to bring the neighborhood association into two meetings. even though they did not have to send out notice of phase one at all. second, serial permitting is all about seeking permits in two steps so as to get something done that would not be allowed if they were obtained it one step. obviously, that is not the case here if both phases of the project were part of one phase. resulting billings would be

perfectly code compliance. the reason for two phases, why? because the first phase to be approved, twice, without 311 edification, thus quicker. thus my clients could stop having to pay simultaneously for two homes before they file for phase two permits to allow their parents to move then. -- to move in. please note -- i am almost out of time. i have an aerial photo to show, which is evidence of the rear in existence in the 1970's, but i have run out of time. thank you. commissioner garcia: mr. gladstone, what is the square footage on the deed to this property? >> i don't know if i have to deal with me. i know the square footage of the building envelope the castillos

lived in. commissioner garcia: did they sell a house that included square footage? >> my clients bought it, the castillos went into bankruptcy. my clients bought it, and they bought -- i don't have the grand diva, but i believe what they thought they were buying was exactly what they saw when they did their due diligence during pre closing. there was sales paraphernalia indicating square footage, and i don't have that with me. commissioner garcia: you are under the impression this included the square footage, the extension? >> absolutely. commissioner garcia: you stated, showing that letter, you showed something having to do with the

fact that the addition might have built and 1971 not have required variants. what about permit? >> it would have required a permit, and you are able to authorize that or the planned department can authorize that today. as you know, when work is done without permit, someone is allowed to retroactively get that permit it. the have to pay a penalty, hopefully not nine times if they did not do it themselves, and what we're seeking is that the planning department allowed a retroactive approval in the form of allowing a renovation of the envelope. that is before you. commissioner garcia: alright. commissioner fung: counselor, for the portion of the house that was demolished because of the dry rot that was found, was there any documentation done to

the type of material that was removed? >> i was the architect was here. he could tell you. or maybe -- would you like to describe it? do you know the type of material that was uncovered by the contractor when he was working on the rear portion? is that the question? commissioner fung: yes, it and age and the type of construction? >> if you saw those materials, did your contractor tell you what he thought the age of those materials might be? or did the architect? commissioner fung: are you asking if he understood my question? >> i understood the question. the question is -- and here is seth, the architect. i think he is probably more qualified. commissioner fung: for the portion of the building that was demolished because you found dry

rot and other things wrong with the existing structure, is there anything reflective of those materials that would point towards an age or form of construction? >> i am sorry, my name is seth, the architect on the project. i did not see all of the materials myself. i saw some would come out -- i saw some wood , that was much older, old tight douglas-fir from several decades ago, and i also saw some new work to buy for material -- two-by-four material on the rear part of the construction. commissioner fung: was there plaster in the rear? >> there was plaster in some of

the rooms, yes. it commissioner fung: fung:wood backing? >> i cannot recall the extent to which we had would last. i recall there being some plaster when we walked through in the rear. vice president goh: did you also see sheet rock? >> we saw some of sheet rock and a very rear portion that look like it had been done hastily, recently, and it was over an older wood in some cases. vice president goh: okay, thank you. president peterson: mr. gladstone, there was mention of two complaints being filed. could you walk me through that history? >> i will turn that over to the architect. >> there is a whole string of

complaints. there was one complaint when the owner bought the property that was about an illegal dwelling unit. the inspector walked through it and cited a little plumbing and a kitchen that was not set up. there was also some a little plumbing installed in the rear, on the lower portion, and there was an illegal property line window on the south side of the building. that was the first complaint that we became aware of, just as the owners were buying the property. president peterson: and when did you buy that property? >> would close on that september 18, 2009. >> that was the first complete.

there was another complaint that had to do with a deadbolt installed on the outside gate, and that was updated by removing the dead ball and the notice of the cut -- that was updated by removing the deadbolt. we already halfway through construction that was about exceeding the scope of the permit issue. it president peterson: thank you. is anyone living in the building now? >> no. vice president goh: when you receive the stop work order, at what stage were you? i want to go on record as saying i drove by. i live nearby and i drove by and look like there was no lower floor at all. >> the stop work order came in effect right after we had found