owner of record and appellant sam hom. architect for the appellant, van t. ly and associates. action required by appellant, the appellant is requesting more time to have architect of the required permits. >> good morning, members of the board. chief housing inspector. 1299 arguello blvd. is a five- unit building with a plea or guest rooms on three floors of occupancy. at issue is a notice of violation that was issued in january 2011 regarding a set of stairs that is a second means of egress for one of the units. as you can see from the staff report, we have worked with this particular property owner and we did not schedule it for the directors hearing until the following march, march 2012. at that point in time, the structure was significantly deteriorated and have a significant done over to it with new materials without any bread -- building permit. indeed, a building permit was not filed until july 3 of this year. 18 months after the notice of violation was issued we have a building permit filed not yet issued, going through the process. we're happy to see that, but the prop

[applause] any questions to the appellant? ok. why don't we move to public comment on behalf of members of the public who wish to support the project appellant. [applause] if i could remind members of the public, we have a rule that prohibits applause or other statements of support or opposition so we can keep the proceedings flowing smoothly. if we could hear from our speaker at the podium, please. >> ♪ i have seen landmark fire and rain ♪ ♪ you know you would be sad they're going away ♪ landmark fire and rain ♪ you have seen the landmark times when you thought you had fixed this plan ♪ ♪ but you knew you would not want to see the landmark anend ♪ ♪ you have seen in times when you want to fix this plan ♪ and you are so glad you will fix it one more time again ♪ ♪ landmark fire and a landmark rain ♪ president chiu: thank you. next speaker, please. >> this is about 55 laguna, correct? i live that 55 mason. the historic ambassador hotel. i hope you all can uphold -- you can hold up things that have been landmarks in the city. landma

we will start with the appellant and the appellants representative. you are entitled to 14 minutes. there are two items. >> 14 minutes. i am an attorney, but i do not think i can talk to that long. good evening. i come to the meeting early and late. i was the attorney, and i will not take up too much time. i just want to point out a few things. director goldstein: would you like to state your name? >> my name is john carey. ms. hester makes use of talking about -- she was not there, i was, and they are totally incorrect. the settlement with the city had to deal with matters other than what we are talking about now. the city had insisted on remaking the underpinnings of the area, including the underpinnings of the house, under the promise that they would give them the platform to reconstruct their house that was exactly like the platform they had before the disaster. that did not happen. they included in the best interests of the city that they would take away the substantial underpinnings of the house, so there was a lower portion of the house which was never capable of being recons

the appellate did work extensively with the planning department to revise the design -- the appellant did work with the planning department. we set out narrow -- neighborhood notification. two reviews were filed. what went before the planning commission. the planning commission held several hearings on this item, as has been noted and then subsequently decided to take the review. they conditioned it to go back to the original permit from 1998, and that was a pattern that would allow them to restore the building to what was previously built, and it would correct the issue with the front and backed with the permit was issued in error, and the extension over the front, so that was the condition of the planning commission decision. there were the findings. al fayed findings were not met in this case, so they subsequently denied the various application. -- the findings were not met in this case. they are taking away all of the legal additions that are done, but they were about to restore what was there previously. was that, i will be available for questions. -- with that, i will be availab

[applause] any questions to the appellant? ok. why don't we move to public comment on behalf of members of the public who wish to support the project appellant. [applause] if i could remind members of the public, we have a rule that prohibits applause or other statements of support or opposition so we can keep the proceedings flowing smoothly. if we could hear from our speaker at the podium, please. >> ♪ i have seen landmark fire and rain ♪ ♪ you know you would be sad they're going away ♪

at this time, the appellant have three minutes for rebuttal.llant representative still here? ok. colleagues, any questions to any of the parties? at this time, at this hearing has been held and closed. items 50-52 are in hands of the board. supervisor wiener: thank you, mr. president. i am looking at the papers. as they came in, i paid close attention and really struggled to find a legitimate basis for this appeal and could find nine. this appeal is completely frivolous. it is abusive. none of the arguments, in my view, hold any water. it reminds me of a recent appeal of the booker t. washington project. i also want to -- notes my disappointment in a way that the appellants have treated this board processes. the appeal was filed. the briefing was late. not submitted in a timely matter. i considered all the submissions anyway. she did not even bother to show up to date or to least alert the board as to why she was not going to be here. if there was a rationale. we got a comment from mary miles. she did not come today either. despite all of that,

action requested by appellate: to reverse the order of abatement. >> good morning. i am the attorney for the owner of the property. i am here to ask for a continuance of six months. this matter is being handled through the courts. we have gone through arbitration. there has been an interim order issued by the judge gunn monday. that would require us to go back to the judge for refinement on the details of the award. that will probably also require us to submit new plans, which we anticipate will take several months. we think, realistically speaking, a six-month continuance would allow our client to hopefully complete the project. but it is in the works. we are getting closer to resolution. >> i would like to hear if staff has any objections to that. >> we came this morning with the intention of not recommending any continuances, but having heard this, we would concur with that. >> i just want to clarify there are no life safety hazards, have the department clarify that. >> so the order from the court is about who is responsible for doing the work? could you explain

the appellant referred to the sf mime troupe. their 1965 arrest on august 7, 1965 in lafayette park inspired the idea of a community gathering space as a minor design feature but it has nothing to do with this appeal. it was a product of a lengthy and transparent process that the santa fe -- san francisco recreation and park department provided. anyone who cared would have had the opportunity to know about it and make their opinions known, ask any questions. there was ample opportunity for all that. i am in support of the renovation project and have actively participated in the planning and development of the plan. please denied the appeal so this project will move forward and the project can be renovated as quickly as possible for the benefit of the community. thank you. president hwang: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. i have lived for 28 years one block east of lafayette park. when i moved to the neighborhood, i had done to it -- young children and they used the playground. i have had three different dogs who

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 f

sanchez. >> just one point in response to the appellants. they pointed out the driveway path, and it is my understanding it is not subject to the permit before you for approval this evening, and the work within does comply to the review that was granted to it, and they may want to confirm that, but that is my understanding. >> the matter is submitted. >> mr. sanchez, i do not know which of you are going to answer this question. can you address the concern there was serial permitting? >> i think it is death from the department of building inspection. i did check today, and there are a couple of different permits approved. there was one issue, and this one has been suspended, but it is probably better, makes more sense to may be applied under separate permits. may be planning is going to uphold because they have to go through further review, so if you want to get your project started, i see it all the time. people whose blood permits on different scopes of work. if -- people split permits on different scopes of work. i would not call four perm

we will give time to each of the appellate starting with 074. we will give a combined 20 minutes to the parks department and zoning administrator. and we can begin. >> good evening. my name is broke. i am an environmental attorney representing some -- my name is brooke. i am an environmental attorney. i am also a soccer player. i have also coached youth and college soccer. i love the game of soccer, and i love nature, but i do not believe one should be sacrificed for the other. fortunately, we do not have to choose between soccer and nature if we are smart and strategic. your the proposed project would replace the field with artificial turf, removed adjacent trees, and not installed bright lights, -- install bright lights, add seating, and so on. i will explain why the proposal should be rejected and why there is a feasible proposal that exists. the proposed project is inconsistent with the local coastal program. it is my understanding of the board of appeals has rarely if ever had an opportunity to hear an appeal relating to the california coas

vice president fung: i have a question for the appellant. the permit holders brief indicates that your client is intending to move out of san francisco? >> i think they have been looking around for what they can afford, and they have not been able to afford anything comparable. they have this huge, massive garden, and for them to find a replacement home in san francisco, they don't believe they can afford it. she was forced to retire because he intended to live in san francisco, but because of the situation, she has been forced to retirement. vice president fung: they're going to continue to look in san francisco? >> there are looking outside now because they cannot afford anything close to what they have currently. it vice president fung: ok, what about the unit that was offered to them. did that occur? >> it did not have the garden, and the selling point to them was the fabulous garden they have spent a lot of time on. ivice president fung: ok. president hwang: i'm sorry, did she say she was forced into early retirement? >> yes, it was a d

if we can hear from the appellant and her representatives. anything more to say? >> no. >> you need to speak to the mic if you do want to come up. >> i did not hear there were any life-threatening hazards that were found. ms. dhillon continues to look for housing, but it is difficult. i just heard today of an opening in a senior housing center that is going to be taking applications on october 1 for one week. she got on the waiting list, so that is something, and the landlord just wrote -- just showed me three listings he came across, so we will investigate. all we are looking for is time to secure affordable housing in san francisco in the ideal world, so thank you. >> if we can hear from the permit holder. >> hi, the landlord. the last hearing we gave some numbers about what it would cost to make the unit legal. i think after duffy looked at it, the fact we would have to make all three units up to code, the cost is going to be prohibitive, and i do not think we can afford to bring all three units of to code, so we would like a permit to stand. the real problem w