the dry rot and removed a portion of the rear wall. at that point, we were about 40% complete with instruction. vice president goh: foundation replacement happened? >> there was extensive the- replacement. the first alteration permit, we were trying to save as much of the foundation as possible before we opened the slab. it appealed to myself -- and appeared to myself and the structural engineer would be up to save some of the foundation. we began replacing the foundation, shoring up the building, which is what you do. vice president goh: okay, that answers my question. president peterson: thank you. commissioner garcia: i have sort of an incomplete answer to a question having to do -- and you would probably know, what was the square footage of the house that was purchased by this

couple? would it include the extension? did you ever see the deed? >> i don't know. i can tell you the square footage is. scott sanchez, planning department's staff. i do not have much to add other than to say we do not have any evidence of the building permit application. however, it appears the building as it was constructed would become compliant. the rear yard requirement would have been 25 feet.

however, you get to reduce that if you have a lot that is shorter than 100 feet and this was a 70 ft. deep lot. it would have met exactly the code requirements of the day. that is the code information i can tell the board. commissioner fung: in 78 it changed? >> that is when bernal heights put in that regard requirement. commissioner garcia: blanche stone told us it did not need eight variants, if his date is correct, but it might have needed a permit. is that correct? >> i would refer it to director kornfield about whether a permit would be required. as for whether the department has retroactive powers to grant a permit which would now require a variance, i do not believe

that is the case. i can check with the city attorney's office and see if we have that power, but it is something that may be in the power of this board. vice president goh: i am not entirely sure i followed that. let me back up. when we were discussing the jurisdiction request, i thought you said there was still an open question as to whether that exterior portion exceeded the envelope of the existing building. >> the issue is whether or not they have -- whether or not that building which currently encroaches into the required briard, whether or not that is a non-complying structure. that is the question before the board. vice president goh: how could it be a legal and non-complying structure if it was built without a permit? we heard that from -- >> that is the question that is before the board. we at the department could not make that decision, so that is the question for this board to

answer. vice president goh: say that again. >> that is the question that is before the board, whether it is a legal non-complying structure. given that we have not seen a permit, we as the planning department do not see evidence that would be required in order for it to be legal. in our staff review, we cannot come to that conclusion. that is the question that is before the board. the board would be the final arbiter of that question. it is at the city level. vice president goh: so the permit was issued and then a stop work order was issued based on the information we just discussed. >> the building permit that was issued was for repairs to the existing on below. it was not a reconstruction of the envelope. that is why those permits were issued. afterward, it was brought to our attention that the portion of the building at the rear was never a legal.

this was new information for us. it was not a complete we had on file. we investigated the department history and found there was no evidence of a permit. that is when we issue the stop work orders. we have one on the subject permit in the permit described in the jurisdiction request. vice president goh: but your investigation was limited to reviewing the permit history and not the kinds of questions we heard from the other commissioners, looking at the kind of wood that was taken out and that sort of thing. >> we do not have that broad a discretion in deciding if it is non-complying or not. we are purely looking at the record. it does not have a building permit. so it is up to this board to decide if it is a legal non- complying structure. president peterson: mr. sanchez, you said it was code compliant, it appears? >> i believe if it was constructed prior to 1978 it would have met the planning

department code requirements for eight rear yard at that time. -- for a rear yard at that time. commissioner fung: refresh my memory of the exact dimension that is non-conforming. >> it looks like it is the rear 10 feet. commissioner garcia: what? >> 10 by 25. commissioner fung: we would have allowed a pop out, right? >> that is correct, but only at one level. i will check the bernal codes. they are much more restrictive and may not permit the pop out. this would not comply with the 12 foot pop out. commissioner fung: about 10 feet, you are saying. >> correct. it would have complied in 1970. president peterson: is there any

public comment on this item? members of the public? step forward. while we are waiting for the first speaker, i want to put on the record that we did check to make sure that vice president goh's home is outside the 500 foot radius, so she does not have a conflict. sir, if you could fill that out after you speak, that would be great. you have one minute. >> i am speaking to you on behalf of and hughes and her family. as a native of san francisco, my family have witnessed the changes that have occurred in san francisco. the representative the changes, it has been the content of the character of its citizens that has made san francisco what it is today. we are made of diverse communities, brought together by the people who live in the neighborhood. these are the very people we need here in san francisco.

as a teacher in san francisco public school, she is making a difference in the family -- in the community with her students. she has volunteered to lead in the creation of a community garden and activities that not only benefit the school but outreach to the community. she has created an environment that adds to the neighborhood. as a parent, she seeks to enrich san francisco as a teacher. thank you. president peterson: next speaker, please. could i see a show of hands of how many people plan to speak? people who want to speak, if you would not mind lining up on that far wall, i would appreciate it. we are crunched for time tonight. >> i am a colleague and a good friend of ann and sam.

i want to speak briefly to support their presence as members of the community and of our school community. i used to live in bernal and had to relocate my family out of the city because we could not find a home here. teaching at the school that i teach at, i hear stories from ann about students who runs into in her neighborhood, as her family is involved in the neighborhood. it stars the longing in my heart to be back in the community i teach in. i think it is essential that a city like san francisco allow teachers to work in the same communities we teach him. bernal is the quintessential san francisco neighborhood and this is the quintessential san francisco family. they are part of our community, an integral part of our school community. our schoolmates them. our community.

-- our school needs them. >> if you would not mind filling out a speaker card, we would appreciate it. >> i am a neighbor on 11 colridge. i live to the rear of the proposed building. i brought some evidence i would like to submit. it says the original building envelope was 1200 square feet. i am not opposed to these people being part of my neighborhood. i think it is fabulous they are. this seemed to be upstanding and wonderful. what i am opposed to is the size of the building. i chose to buy in bernal because i love this backyard. it is clear to be a huge tower looking over into my backyard. why am i going to be living there? i also saw that building go up, go down, go up.

i have lived there for 10 years and seen at least four reconstructions of that back porch. i even talked to the previous owner about it. there you go. sorry. thank you. commissioner fung: how long have you lived in your current house? >> i have only lived there for 10 years. 81 -- i mean 91. [laughter] commissioner fung: you said a number of times there have been alterations? >> the back porch would go up and down. up the stairs were back then sideways. but they redid it and then the stairs went toward my house. the big guys who lived there would throw chicken bones over there. commissioner fung: most of the rear wall was in its current location? >> there is nothing. they tore everything down. commissioner fung: i met before they tore it down. you talked about stairs.

>> it was a shed that had stairs built underneath it, a set of stairs. then it changed and i think they put a bathroom in it or something. i am not sure. i have never been in the home. it was like a porch and it had stairs, and then it became a walled in and game room. there would have poker parties back there. then it got screened in and the stairs came out. commissioner fung: thank you. vice president goh: i was trying to confirm the time period, because i did not understand. i am sorry. i need you to approach. the building that you just described took place over what time? >> i have only been there for about 10 years. about 10 years of it. president peterson: is there any other public comment?

>> good evening, board of appeals. i am with the bernal heights neighborhood center. i am here to speak about issues of concern to the community. wheat serve the community to moderate issues such as the one you are considering right now. when people come into the community, we want them to participate. one thing sam and his family have shown is that they participate. they are engaged in the community. they are engaged in a number of issues. and we look forward to having them participate through the neighborhood center and through the bridge building we do every day to connect people in the community, to make sure people are acting as neighbors. we do not just work at these meetings. we work with youth and seniors in the community and look forward to having them participate in those activities,

as they have shown they do in their lives outside of the community, so thank you. president peterson: is there any other public comment? >> mining is peter stein. i am the director of the jewish film festival. i am a homeowner. i have known as sam and his family were better than 10 years, partly because some works with the festival in a youth mentor ship program through the festival. -- partly because sam works with the festival in a youth mentorship program to the festival. we live in an artist community. i have seen an exodus of all of our neighbors, artists to leave the city because the cannot afford to live here and because it is difficult for them to get a foothold in the community. i was thrilled when sam let me know they had been able to actually purchase a place to

renovate, a dilapidated place in bernal.. it is truly important for some form of independent boys to have a place in san francisco they can call home. president peterson: thank you. and the other public comment? simenon, we will move into rebuttal. -- any other public comment? seeing none, we will move into rebuttal. >> i do want to say that we believe the deed is 1250 square feet. this is what the realtor told us. the notices of violation were with the real-estate materials presented to anybody who came to

look at the house, despite what anybody else says. there was a fire about 1970, the house next door. it burned down and there was damage to the roof 10 lundy's lane. this is what the permit was about. it is about repairing damage done by that fire. we believe the rear 20 feet is illegal. it is not a trivial distance at all. also, in our submission, we submitted the photo showing the rear as it is now. you concede that modern lumber has been used in the construction done. i also want to say i am sorry that this appeal came in at this late date, but we were advised early on that everything would be done to code. and that there would be no

illegal encroachments. and we feel this is totally wrong. also, if there are going to be two units there, that requires off-street parking. that is another thing that has never been addressed. i do not have much more to say. commissioner garcia: you said something about no illegal encroachment. is this expansion that are doing within the building envelope? is that going to be larger than what is there now, or what was there? >> certainly. there it is a building -- commissioner garcia: i understand that. but the extension that was there before would have had the same encroachment you were referring to. >> approximately. there may be a little more encouragement, but i am not sure. commissioner garcia: did you file a complaint with anyone about that? >> i believe we have.

commissioner garcia: did you file any kind of complaint when they were building without benefit of a permit? >> no, but a lot of it was done while we were away. we live and work in other places from time to time. commissioner garcia: when you returned, did you file a complaint? >> we did not. commissioner garcia: thank you. president peterson: the permit holders also have three minutes. >> rick gladstone. the assessor pep record says it is 1218. i want to point out that in the old days as much as 20 years ago, or 15, the building department and the assessor's office were not always in touch with each other, so people could get permits and the assessor's office and would not know a permit to expand. something would be sent and i

would not catch it. it is not unusual to know that the assessor's office may not reflect the square footage that the building department has approved. as to there being no permit, i want you to keep in mind that there were three searches of the permit records by my client's new architect. two of the three came up with different information. price, the micra push people said no permits at all. -- twice, the microphishe people said no permits at all. i believe you could make a fine it -- make a finding that there has been a permit and it has been replaced -- misplaced. the searches come out differently every time you do that. as you know, vested rights occur when someone has reasonably

believed in the rightness of city action and has incurred substantial amounts of money, in this case $140,000 in eight months. they saw the notice of violation that was for the castillos' work and saw 12 items on there. what was not on there was dbi saying there was work to do a rear addition without a permit. there were reasonable to think there was no work without a permit in the rear. it would have been on that. i believe whether or not you can find that there should have been a permit, if you believe there should have been a permit and there was none, and you have trouble finding in our favor on that, i ask you to consider that i think the clients have obtained a vested right to continue. twice, planning department has issued permits on this, once when they issued a permit nov,

and again when they issued a permit to do phase one. in both instances, planning could have brought up the issue. "could you provide a permit showing the rear has been done with a permit?" twice they did not. in reliance on that, my clients are here after a great deal of time and expenditure of money. i ask that you consider that as well as find there could have been a permit, given the permit records system. thank you very much. commissioner garcia: what were the novs on the property? >> one moment. we are pulling it up. it may be in your brief. commissioner garcia: i am unable to find it.

>> i think it is in the brief of the appellant. and i am looking. one moment. it is in our project notes. here it is.

i will put it on the overhead. would you like me to list the main features, or can you read it yourself? it includes illegal dwelling units, a subdivision of rooms without permits, rear of the building has a built in counter with a kitchen sink, the entrance has a ceiling height of only 12 ft. 8, other ceiling height problems. permit research fails to produce any valid permits that were completed to alter the building to its present use. that is used, not structure, meaning the second unit, which they found to be an illegal use. it was a single family home. notice it does not say "present structure." it goes on to say it -- commissioner garcia: that is

good. that satisfies me. thank you. vice president goh: i have a related question. if the envelope is staying the same and it was called hundred 50 feet and finishing the basement with permit at 600 square feet, how did it get to 2700 square feet without an increase in the envelope? -- if the envelope is staying the same and it was 1250 feet >> if you take the footprint that were the initial -- the boeing unit is already at 1400. -- the dwelling unit is already 1400. vice president goh: there was some discussion in the briefing about an overhang. that was the upper floor, the

legal floor. now the plan is to build beneath it and have -- i am sorry. i misunderstood. could you explain that? >> i have a diagram on the overhead that might help, but basically the overhang -- when we first got to the property -- vice president goh: we need the overhead. people downstairs need to react to the term overhead. >> this is showing different diagrams. the one on the left is what we found when we showed up at the property. to us, it was clear that the bottom piece there, the early 1900's footprint, which also had no permit on record -- the original part of the house had an extension done to it in blue. that-line is the first extension, -- that dashed line is the first extension. that is what we believe based on

the pattern of the block and the neighboring buildings. the piece we felt was absolutely illegal and did not meet planning codes was the yellow peas at the end, the stairway and the overhang you have heard us talk about several times. i have a photograph of this if you would rather see that. vice president goh: if you could point to that, what is the overhang? >> this piece of the footprint is a stairway. it encroached on our neighbor's property, over the property line by 8 inches, and went back into even the very minimum setbacks required by the planning department. this is a stairway that came all the way up from the building. this piece was an overhang on the first floor. under it were built a water heater and a closet under the stairs. this is the piece we felt was clearly illegal. in our plan, we removed all of that and internalized the stairs so it is not in the backyard anymore. vice president goh: you are

planning to build up to that dotted line, which is in the illegal area? >> we are not expanding beyond the blue at all. vice president goh: i cannot read your notes. the dotted line on the right hand side, the rear door to the line -- >> that is the 45%. that is the setback in existence in the '70s. vice president goh: are you building up to that dotted line? >> we are not. we are staying well within that. we are not changing this wall at all. we are removing the bids built under the stair and the overhang and leaving the envelope that was well within the setback of the '70s. vice president goh: you are not building to the yellow line at all? >> we are not expanding to that at all. in fact, we are reducing it. commissioner garcia: that is the encroachment that was referred to by mr. soto that is gone, and there will be no more of

that in this project going forward. >> there will be no addition to the encroachment. we will leave this blue piece in place which is encroaching over the 45%. commissioner garcia: you mean encroaching what is required as rear yard space as opposed to encroaching on to another person's property. >> yes. there is no encroachment on to mr. soto's property in our proposed plans. >> there are members of the public, but it might be too late. they want to speak, but it is up to your commission. president peterson: i know our commission would like to hear from mr. kornfield. [coughing] commissioner fung: did someone

have a question? commissioner garcia: i was waiting for you. vice president goh: i was waiting for you. i would like to hear about the permit history research investigation, and what other kinds of investigation one might undertake. >> laurence kornfield from the department of building inspection. there are many sources of documentation of construction in the city. the basic one that most people go to is the department of building inspection's microfilm office on the fourth floor, where we maintain records of permits going back to 1906. we have a fairly comprehensive collection of all permits, whether they were completed or expired or otherwise acted upon. it is true that occasionally