the middle of the peaked roofs. not different styles. relative affordability, i think the issue there is how you protect it and it's the impact of the project around the existing housing that's around it. what impact is it going to have? what is it going to mean down the line? i know it's not, there's no such thing as affordability in noa valley any more, but in 317 they talk about that. yes, they say -- i don't know who said it's not relative affordability, i think that was the planning department that said that, but the project sponsor said it would protect the relative affordability. um, those 16 criteria, what ways more? what's more

valuable? the way i counted it was like a tie. but to me i think the issue of relative affordability, of protecting the relative affordability of existing housing, is so important. and the only way i could see of doing that would be to reduce the square footage and that's why i brought it out to bring it back from the light well, which i knew was an issue. i mean, there's a 15-foot drop from the gonzalez house to this new house. one way you could deal with both the relative affordability and the design guidelines is to sort of push that off to the side and create a setback. the house up the hill has a setback, way up the hill, that has a flat roof. it's set back on the side. it creates the effect of a peaked roof in a modern way. i mean i can understand why people would want a peaked roof, that would be nice, i know that's never going to fly because it doesn't fly with the planning department or the

designers today. the important thing is the surrounding housing and that's all about protecting the relative affordability. if you want to, i mean we could sit here and i could go through those 16 criteria and say, well, this isn't applicable and this isn't met and this is met but i think that, to me, i think that i really really hope that you consider the protection of the relative affordability. and i struggled with what is that? and i think that's, it's very problematic because everyone talks about affordability, affordability, affordability. but we know there's set numbers for that. we know there's set numbers for that and we know there's an affordability gap and we know all that stuff. but this concept is intriguing to me because it allows people to sort of modulate what, the

overpriced, overly expensive homes in san francisco and deal with the issue in a realistic way. we're never going to have affordable housing in noe valley, i know that. but there's a big difference between having to afford a 5 million dollar home, which we don't have on our block yet, and a 2, 2 1/2, close to 3 million dollar home. there's a difference in that. there's a different market for that. and that's what i'm looking and hoping that this board will consider and protect because i think that protects the existing housing. i mean, i looked at the web site online to try to understand what's going on in the neighborhood. and i looked at one for my house and for that house, the range is anywhere from 437 duncan for $800,000 to a million. that's what they say. i looked at one for my house, which is just up the street, same web site, they

said it ranges anywhere from a million four, a million and a half, to two million. that's my house, a 1900 square foot house. the middle is 1.7 million. so, to me, that is the relative affordability. maybe it's silly, maybe it's crazy, but it's not any crazier than saying, all of a sudden saying a house is unsound when you've said it was sound. it's not any crazier than saying the house is horrible when people were living there. i don't know what else i can say. i thought about this for years and i just, you know, i was not the dr requester, i just want to make that clear to you. i was not the dr requester. i have always, always talked about the mandatory dr, i talked about that at the planning commission, i talked about it in my submission, i talked about it in a follow-up letter to mr. kevlin when the

project was approved at the planning commission. to me that is the most important issue and i hope that you will kick it around a little bit and consider it because i think it's worthy of consideration. i think it's in the planning code and it's worthy of consideration. thank you very much. >> miss knight, rebuttal. >> a few quick issues. the first is regarding, you heard something about the light well. and the light well was very carefully designed in response to neighbor concerns. tes a very large light well that was put in specifically to protect the light and air to the neighboring property. and so that's actually a feature of the house that was very carefully designed and in order to benefit the neighbors. and so i hope you take that into consideration regarding the concerns of the light well. the other thing is the design. unlike the residential design guideline picture that was put up, this block has peaked

roofs, flat roofs, it has a wide variety of architectural styles on this street. and the proposed project bridges those styles, it is appropriate while designed and is certainlifitting and in keeping with the architecture of the neighborhood. that's all i have unless you have any questions for me. >> what is the height elevation relationship between the second floor of your client's proposed home with the gonzalez home? >> so there's a two-story on one side and the one story on the other side. and so essentially the houses are stepped down so ours is stepped down from the two story, which

ours is lower down the hill, stepped down from the two story, then the one story home --. >> your home, the gonzalez home is below your house? >> below our house, that's correct, yes. >> and your large window there at the light well occurs at your second floor? >> it's the entry way to the, it's the sbrai way to the home. >> talking about the light well. >> the windows for the light well, i can put this up if this is helpful. you can see these are the, this is the outline of the light well. this is the outline of the light well. i don't know if you can read the text at all, and the windows that are there are, they are essentially in an entry way so

the living room is on one side and the kitchen is on another and those allow light into the --. >> so the dotted line is the gonzalez home? >> correct. >> we're having problems with the monitor. >> mr. pacheco, if you can maybe make it a little darker. it's hard to see. >> the light well, it goes all the way down to the level of the neighboring home windows. there's some testimony about that. >> is the light well painted black? >> the light well is not painted black. i think the confusion is that the renderings for the project were done in black and that may have been what caused the confusion about the color of the project. >> mr. pacheco, i think the remote might be tucked in that corner right by the --. >> okay, thank you.

>> thank you. >> no further questions, commissioners? we'll see if the zoning administrator has any rebuttal. >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department. just on a

few quick points. first, in regards to soundness, the planning department did not find this building to be unsound and that was not a factor in the decision to approve the project. in regards to the light well, i think the project sponsor has kind of explained the relationship to the neighboring property and also from what i could tell on the plan, it looked like it was on the plan set that was reviewed by the planning commission at the hearing last july so that's something that has been a part of the project for some time. while there were changes after that hearing, it seems that the light well element is consistent with the previous review. with regards to the criteria of section 317, no specific criteria is weighted any greater than any other, that's up to the commissioners who are reviewing it, who are making the decision on the section 317 review. that's up to each individual commissioner how they kind of evaluate that criteria and the weight they may place behind them. in our review we generally weight each fairly individually and look on balance how it meets the application. in regards to peaked roofs, we do approve projects that have peaked roofs all the time. it's just a question of context and where we may request or require that someone modify the project to change the roof form, certainly we feel that's appropriate and we feel the residential design guidelines dictate that, then we would make those requests to a project sponsor, but that was not the case here. i agree with the apellant that section 317 is problematic.

been before you before on other cases and i think we have expressed our concerns regarding this, not on something like this which was actually more straightforward because it's a demolition permit and a new construction project. this is not an alteration and we're not debating whether it's tantamount to a demolition. i do think section 317, which has been in place since 2008, to address concerns, may not be the best tool. it may be the best tool that we had at the time but when we look back and see what other options we have to try to enhance and preserve our relatively affordable houtsing stock. so with that i am available for any questions. thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> does our new commissioner want to weigh in? >> not quite yet. >> there's a couple of major

issues that have been brought forth here. at first, you know, when i read the brief i wasn't quite understanding the term relative affordability. most of us think that there's, you know, are there the poor, the rich, and perhaps something in between, you know. and perhaps, and i don't want to put words in her mouth, but, yes, there is absolutely a fact that the middle is the one that has never had any attention in this city. the poor, there are extensive programs, the rich they can do whatever they want and take care of themselves. so the question then is whether that has any issues with the broader policies of affordability within our city. and i don't find that's the case. you know, when you're talking about a $2 million home as a starter you have to make in

excess of $200,000 to be able to afford it, i don't consider that affordable at all. the other portion, the other issue that's been brought forth, is the contextual issue of the architecture. i would agree that the existing -- the original proposal which had another floor probably was way out of scale within this neighborhood. with the reduction of that floor, i no longer find it to be out of scale. i don't think one style needs to be replicated over and over. the fact that this building has a different palate, a different motif, --

well, maybe i better stop on that point but i don't find that to be an overriding concern on my part and therefore i'm not prepared to support the appeal. >> once again i concur. >> make a motion, commissioner? >> i'm going to move to deny both appeals of the demolition permit and the building permit on the basis that that the issues that were raised, on the basis that the design was appropriately vetted by the planning department. >> there's a motion on the floor from commissioner fung to

uphold both permits, the demolition and new construction, on the basis that the design was appropriately vetted by the planning department. on that motion to uphold both permits, president lazarus, aye. vice president honda, aye. commissioner wilson, aye. commissioner swig, aye. thank you, the vote is 5-0. both permits are upheld on that basis. thank you. >> congratulations on your first vote, too. >> with the president's consent we are going to take item no. 9 out of order and take that item next. item 9a and b, which is appeal no. 15-029 and 15-030, both filed by mark anthony bruno against the department of building inspection, both are protesting the issuance on february 12,

2015 of antonio sweet trust of an alter permit, both are for a kich epiand bath remodel. we will start with mr. bruno mr.

bruno, you have 14 minutes. >> thank you, commissioners, board members, thank you for listening to this appeal of a permit that was activated in november of 2014 without any notice to any of the people living in the building where the work was to be done. some of that work began in november of 2014 and had been continued in january for 5 days of this year. at that point an inspector from the city, inspector dennis yee, and the housing department was called by me because i was wondering how they could do this tremendous amount of work, what i thought was a demolition because it was so noise , without notifying anybody in the building. i was informed by mr. yee, the inspector, that they can't because the buildings are so old they predate 1979, that there's a law on the books, according to the housing department -- i've since read the law, of course -- called the san francisco lead based paint abatement ordinance. and that oird napbs is one of the only ordinances that require buildings that fall into our category, oru, which is an r2 residential category, those buildings are required to be

noticed, the residents aren't required but in this case they are because of the lead-based paint because of the environmental hazards that lead-based paint could have on people who live in the neighborhood and in the building. so in our building in particular there's one woman who is pregnant so that's important i think to know and there's me, who has a long-term problem with my breathing and there's other people who are consider bli older than me. but regardless of that, we might all be in perfect health. the idea of notice in the city of san francisco whether it's for an environmental law or for anything else is that notice gives us all the opportunity as citizens to make choices in our lives and the choice here is merely one that we could leave. nothing about the notice requirement prevents the builder from moving forward ultimately with the project, a refurbishment project. all it says is for those people living nearby because there's lead-based paint, if you choose

to because you think lead-based paint is unhealthy, you could leave. why that's important, if you look at the building code there are two reasons that this particular permit can and should be either suspended or revoked, which is what i'm asking you to do, sus pend or revoke the permit for 7 nobles alley the building official may, the building official from the building department may in writing suspend or revoke a permit issued under the provisions of this code whenever the permit is issued in error or on the basis of incorrect information. the second, which is not discretionary, the second section of the code also under permits, what is a permit, how do permits work, says validity of permit. the issuance of a permit or approval of plans shul not be considered for

violation of any of the provisions of this law or any other regulations. i contend, quite simply, that the permit which the city unknowingly gave to workers to use in a lead-based building, a lead-based painted building, is no good. it's not valid. it's not valid under the building code because nothing that they are doing is consistent with another section of the building code, the lead-based paint abatement ordinance, which merely requires, among other things, that everybody in the building be noticed. how do we know that they aren't doing it properly? because dennis yee, who is an inspector for the city, on the 15th of january issued a notice of violation. and that notice of violation says, in part, that the responsible party did

not post a sign stating that lead work was in progress. he writes also that for interior work the permit holder must immediately post that lead work is in progress at all access points. he thirdly writes that notice to residential occupants must be given. the owner did not, and this is a quote from the nlv on january 15th, the own er did not provide written notice of work that he is removing lead-based paint to the residential occupants at least 3 business days prior to the work. it's not only giving notice, it's notice of a certain sort that's very practical. it's not notice once the work begins. the last time we were here some of you asked the representative from the building department how is that notice given, what are the mechanics of it, and he misstated it's given within 3 days. actually there are some things in the building code that permit builders to give notices after they have begun work. this is not one of those cases.

interestingly, six weeks later, on the 25th of february, a second notice of violation was given by the city and it was given by mr. dennis yee, again going out to the same place with the same permit holder, the same issues, and what did he write? no posting of a sign to the public. for interior work, no posting of a sign at access points. no notice to residential occupants at least 3 days in advance. what happened between those two days, 6 weeks of difference, that would allow a permit holder to think they could continue the work that they have already been given notice by the city that they must somehow cure? well, i can't speak for their intentions but i do know on the original permit and on their corrected permit in january they use the wrong owner's name. they refer to the wrong lot of the building. they not only changed the address, the

wrong address, originally it was 472 union, then they changed it in january to 7 and 9 nobles alley, so they corrected that, but they left the lot the same. and in both instances when they started the work in november and when they continue nd january and got a new permit with some minor changes, they used the owner's name who is no longer currently owning the building and i know that because i checked with the recorder assessor's office and here is the certified copy of who owns the building. you can see that it says in small print here 478, that's the front of the building which is 7 and 9 nobles, 478 union street and that's the owner's name now. it switched from antonia sweet who is on all these permits and has nothing to do with the property any more, to maury

herskovitch why would they do that? i can't tell you. but they also claim in their brief there's some sort of relationship between those two parties but again i checked with the recorder and assessor's office, there's no such relationship. i was told specifically the only other party as far as the city is concerned is umpqua bank out of washington. so between november when they got the first notice of violation and february 5th when they got the second, mr. yee tried to meet with them twice unsuccessfully. they didn't come to the meetings. he tried to phone them. the phone number on the permit is incorrect. so what's happened is that as clearly stated in the nov's, all work must cease because i in late january i appealed their permits. in spite of that appeal on january 16th,

they continued to do work. so that produced two more nov's, nov's that have nothing do do with mr. yee's inspection. the second two nov's for these units are from mr. robert powers in the building department for failing to stop work once your permit has been appealed. to me, this gets to the very heart and integrity of an apellant process or a fair process in the city of san francisco, that people just keep doing things because they feel like it one morning, what's the point of what we're doing here today or this city hall or for any of us as citizens to take the time to complain about a permit that isn't abiding by the code? so they continue to do the work, the nov's from robert powers in the building department are current nov's. how we know that is because they say that they are building until a decision is made by this body. so there are 5

nov's all together, three from mr. yee, two from mr. powers, two of the five are on 15 nobles, two of them are on sefrp and 9 nobles alley i want to show you what the realistic product is, the practical effect of this failure by the permit holder to abide by the law and to abide by the notices of violation. the practical effect is this: the practical effect, this is signed by dennis yee, he took the photos, many photos he took of specks of lead strewn based

paint on the sidewalk. whether we think that is a serious matter or not, the point for the city is that it's easily remedied. there's no reason it has to be thrown on the sidewalk. there's no reason it has to be thrown into the air because it's very inexpensive for the builder, for the permit holder, to do it correctly. here again we have a window open which mr. -- again, these are all photos from, interestingly, not the 15th of january when they were given their first warning, but you can see, if you can see the whole picture here, he says right here, february 26, signed by dennis yee, rear of nobles alley this particular unit is a window that's open, it's not covered with plastic and just beneath it on the same day you can kind of tell it's the same paneling, on the same day, taken by mr. yee, your inspector, on the 26th, six weeks after they were given the

original warning of their misbehavior, here are the specks not on the sidewalk but near all of us who are living in the interior of the building. this is a picture also taken on the 26th, 6 weeks after the original warning, of all the pieces of wood which you can see here covered with white paint, that wiet paint is lead-based paint, probably. that's the presumption of the law. if it's built before 79 it's lead-based paint unless proven otherwise by the permit holder, which they have the right to do. but in this case they chose to do nothing. they chose to lie on the permit and not give us the correct information so the city itself when i called up in january said, well, we don't even have a record of this permit being issued. why? because it was all on the wrong address. it was all under the wrong owner, it was all with the wrong phone number. so these people in january started with misinformation which under our own code is a reason to suspend

or revoke the permit. and secondly they continued to violate other sections of the code which under the validity of permit section, which i read at the beginning of my testimony, requires that this board revoke the current permit because it's invalid. it's not a valid permit when they are using it to violate a section of the code. and i believe it was done deliberately. let plea tell you that in the end the effect is that 11 residents of the city of san francisco rather than being given a choice about their own lifestyle, namely, i will go to the library , i will go to my girlfriend's house, i will go to my friend's house to avoid the lead-based paint, no, they were not given a choice. at no cost to the permit holder they were denied the minimum choice anybody should have with their

own environment, which is to leave where they are living, leave that unsafe environment, and say i choose to be somewhere safer. you can make your money but i don't have to be part of it. but what these permit holders did was insist that 11 residents innocently who have no profit stake at all in this project would be forced to remain there while they are doing their work. it's abhorrent and i think this board must in go