>> good evening, and welcome to the november 3, 2010 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. commissioner chris hwang will be absent this evening. francesca will provide the board with any legal advice this evening. i am the executive director, sent via gold steam. we're joined by the representatives of the department that will be presenting the cases. we have laurence kornfield with the department of building inspection.

sitting next to him is the newly named zoning administrator, scott sanchez, and carl short, representing the department of public works bureau of urban forestry. if you could please go over the meeting guidelines and to at the swearing and process. >> the board request that you turn off all electronic devices so do not disturb the proceedings. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the board's rules for presentation are as follows -- appellants, permit holders, and department responders each have seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for rare bottle. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within those times. members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board, nor bottles. to assist the board and the accurate proportion of minutes, members of the public to wish to speak on an item are asked but

not required to submit a speaker card or business card to board staff when you come up to the lectern. a speaker card and pans are available on the left side of the podium and customer service satisfaction forms are on the left side of the podium. if you have questions about a rehearing or rules of a hearing scheduled, please speak to board staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow morning. the board office is located at 1650 mission street, room 304. this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco government television, sfgtv cable channel 78, and dvd's of this meeting are available for purchase directly from sfgtv. thank you for attention. at this point, we will conduct our swearing and process. if you plan to speak in front of the board, please stand up. do you solemnly swear or affirm

the testimony or about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? thank you. >> thank you. a president peterson, members of the board, we have one housekeeping number, appeal number 10-097, item 8, the property at 1400 grant avenue. the parties have jointly request that this matter be returned -- be rescheduled. president peterson: so moved. >> is there any public comment? seeing none, if he could call the roll. >> on that motion from the president to reschedule item 8, appeal number 10-097, to january 19, 2011 -- [roll call vote]

the vote is 4-0, the matter is rescheduled. >> thank you. moving to item number one, public comment. is there any member of the public here who would like to speak on any item that is not on the agenda? >> good afternoon. i would like to address part of my speech to the deputy attorney. he recently provided a memorandum on october 6, 2010, regarding the board of appeal. imagine home rule. -- you mentioned home rule. he said the requirements to not apply to the city is because membership to the board of appeals falls on the the city's home rule powers under the constitution. accordingly, the regulation qualifications could not apply in the charter city but in the general city law. you are not correct in that aspect. let me give you a u.s. legal definition of home rule, at

least part of the definition. it says, "wuerl county is still subject to restrictions founded the united states constitution, state constitution, and in the state law applicable to all counties." the 2007 california building codes are mandated by the state. this is part of this code and all cities and counties are required to adopt. your memo has many inaccuracies, and you support your statements by only using a portion of a sentence from the law taken out of context, which we all know that does not work. i will address your entire memo soon and provide all of you with a copy. meantime, i again state that commissioner garcia and peterson did not have the required minimum qualifications as required by the 2007 california building code and are not

qualified. commissioner fung you have the qualifications and you have dealt with the code and the laws and you know what i have said is true and accurate. however, as you usually do we do want the truth to be heard, you stay silent. that makes you a collaborator to all of the projects that come before you. you commissioners have taken an oath to uphold the united states constitution, the state constitution, and by knowing you did not have the required qualifications you are denying the people their right to due process. thank you. >> thank you. is there any other public comment? seeing none, we move onto item number two. commissioners? >> i want to thank everybody the audience for coming this evening.

besides the celebration of the giants, we decided it was worth continuing. it will make adjustments in schedules. i know some people are still trying to access the. and there are concerns about parking and child care, so we will be flexible in tonight's schedule. i have also asked to limit public comment on specific items to one minute each because of the lightness of tonight's starting time, as well as trying to get people out of the civic city area. >> thank you. any other commissioner comments? any public comment on item number two? seeing none, we move to item number three, the consideration of possible adoption of the minutes for the board meeting of october 20, 2010. any comments? president peterson: i move to adopt the october 20, 2010

minutes. that is there any public comment on the minutes? -- >> is there any public comment on the minutes? call the roll, please. about on that motion to adopt the october 20 minutes -- [roll call vote] the vote is 4-0, the minutes are adopted. >> thank you. president peterson: if you could call item fora., please? -- if you could call item 4a, please? >> jurisdiction request of the subject property at 10 lundys lane. we have a letter from john and catherine soto, request is, asking that the board take jurisdiction over building permit application number 2010/3/17/08393, which was issued on march 22, 2010. this was received in the office on october 18, 2010, and the

permit holder is sam ball. president peterson: before you begin, how to make sure that everybody who needs to be here is here? is everyone okay to go forward? ok. you have three minutes. >> madam chair, members of the board, the project sponsor informed us that the preliminary planning department was code compliant and such and the scope that 311 notice was not required. they recommended an over-the- counter permit, with unofficial notification to the neighbors. there were no major errors. the extension was not legal, and the permit was revoked. also, the approved basis plans cannot agree with the matrix and have building code issues. the fire safety rescue window, like ventilation, stairs, and

sidewalk encroachment. the second unit avoid it 311 on the alterations permit. now it is in limbo and needs of variances. the project got its over-the- counter permit without 311 notification of variances, dying community notification and appeal rights. -- denying that community notification and appeal rights. not notifying anyone of the adjacent owners and giving us erroneous plans. after a while, we figured this out, as a week appealed the revision permits, allowing the extension of rebuilding. the first stop work order ordered the revision permits, and the second was the underlying alteration permits. then there were asked to work on the old footprint, including the u2%m correct in -- second revised

correction. this left the partial permit with problems, two floors with no bathrooms, and one without egress. we rejected and planning suggest we filed this jurisdiction. these plans need serious review before proceeding and hopefully an umbrella permit. testimonials about character or uses of school letterhead cannot change codes. in other appropriate values 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