the dead as they were instructed by the city. -- but they did as they were instructed by the city. they got approval, hired engineers, and others as directed by the city, and those people interfaced with the city to do with the city said they needed to do after the city almost completely destroyed their home. they got to a certain point and all the sudden there are complaints and all the sudden, it is, we did not understand or the plans are not matching your plans. mr. yee did not do any of this and the people who were hired our experience, well thought of and professional individuals who interfaced with the city all the time. to this date there has been no identification of if an error was made where the error occurred. this was all out of the hands of the yees and in the hands of the professionals in the city and

the professionals were told what to do and they did it. the winter these plans and through these plans and to these plans and now the yees are being blamed. we will have to go some -- to some form where evidence must be produced and the culprits to have been blamed for this misunderstanding can be brought forward and we can establish exactly how all this happened and whether or not the yees are entitled to compensation for the space that was lost. there was loose talk about what they did and did not get. they did not get the space under the house, it was taken away. that was never part of the agreement or the deal. no one has gotten up here and said that space under the house that was referred to was in fact given back to them. it was not. no one has gone up here and said when the lawsuit was settled, that space was taken into

consideration. they were compensated for it. it was not. i was there. i negotiated the settlement. they were told one thing and handed something else. all of these people are coming to this from a historical perspective and reading the documents of others, coming to the conclusion that some held the y- -- somehow the yees are to blame. they are not. president hwang: -- vice president fung: there is another forum, i will ask the question, there is no discussion in your brief as to what was in the original permit versus we have been cited for. do you want to comment on that or not all? >> the permit was issued on an emergency basis. i have not had prior experience

with an emergency permit. the idea was that the city thought this was a good way to go because they had to a large extent been responsible for the destruction of the house and so mr. yee was assured by the building department and other agencies that he would be able to move forward and get back what he lost and when the issue of came up of some complaints and he needed to file additional applications, rather than charge ahead and insist, he went ahead and applied for the variance and he went ahead and submitted supplemental plans. that turned into more of a snarl. instead of standing his ground and saying this not the deal i made, you told me one thing and another but what i was going to be able to do, people started dropping back and saying, the emergency permit does not allow you to do what you are doing. the most important thing is he may be an engineer by background

and -- but has never done presidential and he hired a slew of well thought of professionals to handle this for him with a highly specialized city department. it is amazing to me that this whole thing could have gone to this point with those two groups working together. the bottom line, he does not get what he was supposed to get when i first got involved in this. the first the herd was the city attorney was reviewing this matter -- i heard was the city attorney was reviewing this matter for some form of prosecution. if we can i get some kind of resolution from a negotiation with the city, that is the only hope he has. vice president fung: the other part of my question, the other part of your p.o. is on the variance. do you want to see -- say anything regarding the variants? >> i am told there is no change

in the rear yard setback. that is the way it is and has been since he owned the house. other people have a difference -- have a difference of opinion. would it be helpful if i said i was not there? i do not have the technical skill to tell you whether there is or is not anything new in the backyard but according to mr. yee, there is not. anyone can say what they want to say in a form that relies on everyone's best intentions and that is why sometimes evidence have to be presented and diagrams have to be presented and the matter can be resolved. i do not understand how some people can look at the backyard and say some have -- something has been added and something has not. president hwang: thank you.

>> i refer you again to the attachments to my brief. there was a sinkhole in december 1995. there was a permit that was negotiated and issued for them and was signed off in 1999. it was signed off as final. they did not protest the 1999 sign-off of the permits they had bargained for when the sinkhole happened four years earlier. they waited until 2009 and in 2009, there were additions made. there were additions made on permits that the planning department never gave notice

for. the planning department routinely uses the 311 process for additions to residential buildings. when a 311 notice is given, that means you want to have the expense in -- expansion and they meet with all the parties. what was done in 2008 was they started the construction and they build additions. my minutes are from the building inspection commission exhibit b and exhibit c. i was not at those meetings. those were the building commission hearings. they involved building inspectors and statements before the commission on what was shown at that project. and the building department measured the building against the plan. they found three editions.

it was not me. you do not have to believe me. you have to believe the building department. they found three editions that went beyond the scope of what was permitted in 1999 -- the 1999 permit. they went through a long period with the planning department and mr. sanchez is right. the planning commission was not going to approve any additions that had not gone through the planning department's process which is a reasonable position for the planning department and the planning commission to take. we ask you to uphold the decision of scott sanchez and the planning commission on the d.r. and the change was in 2008 when these additions happened,

not in 1999. thank you. >> thank you for the complete and thorough response. just reiterating the history here. the appellant it obtain a permit to reconstruct and the department recognized there were errors in the permit. as mentioned in the site plan, there were inconsistencies in their. it should not have been recognized without a variance. the appellant was represented by a competent counsel at the time of the work of the

commission. we believe the commission did make the correct terman -- determination. i hope you will uphold and i am available for any questions. >> your stufstaff made site viss to verify what was permitted? >> we did site visits but i had not asked him that. i know from the records from the building permit they have made several visits to the site. >> your department had some reliance on what the building department did. >> this was a complicated matter.

the department did review the permits. >> anything further? the matter is submitted. i guess we give them the opportunity to respond. there was very little information. this is the step with in some type of the process, a long-term process. i do not see any freasons to

overturn the denial of the building permit or the denial. >> i agree. i would love to deny both appeals for the reasons stated in the planning commission's brief. if you could call the roll. >> we have a motion from commissioner hurtado to deny the appeals and uphold the petition and deny the variants. on that motion, ficvice presidet

fung, aye,. the denials are upheld with a vote of 4-0. we are taking five minutes. thank you.

president hwang: welcome back to the august 22, 2012 meeting of the board of appeals. we're calling item number seven. shannon gallagher. subject prieta 2101 washington street. a permit to alter a building. new plumbing fixtures, park improvements, lights, new retaining walls, and it. witt will start with the appellant. you have seven minutes. >> thank you. at one of three open committee meetings, it was suggested that the san francisco mind troupme e

be honored. to commemorate them, the amphitheater was designed. it turns out the friends of lafayette park and had it wrong. in 1962, they performed once at washington square park. the following year, the recreation and parks commission denied them the permit for for their performances fighting their act was obscene. ironically, this non-history is being commemorated at our park while one of the most important historical aspects, the holiday house, is not even getting a plaque. instead it is getting paid men and picnic tables. which brings me to one important piece of new information for the commission to consider. the apparent remnants of the holiday mansion were brought to

my attention by local historian rand richards, author of three books on san francisco. the planning department does not seem to be aware that remnants of the house actually exist. this is the house. here is the cement footing that runs 55 feet. it is not known if it continues under the ground. it is covered by dirt and grass around the other side of the house. any archaeological a significant artifacts is to be preserved under federal law. not covered over with pavement and picnic tables. it seems the planning department has an unresolved issue. i invite you to come up and inspect the summit and mr. richards has agreed to me you should be interested in preventing irreversible damage to our remnant of the home in one of san francisco's most careful -- called for characters. -- colorful characters.

what i am asking of you is to modify the permit to protect this asset. the appeal addresses several concerns regarding the ada and related california access rules. a planned space would not be allowed. there are no parking spaces in the park. according to the racks and park department, the planned accessible space is required because providing access to persons who are disabled at the new maintenance complex is required. but there is no new maintenance facility. they will be replacing and relocating the existing maintenance container with two new 18 by 20 foot containers and a new concrete bunker to hold greenways. because this is not a new facility, the board cannot allow them to pay